Obama Gets Schooled By Reaganomics

[travelinman67]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04 ... -expected/

Contrasting Reagan's successful recovery job growth with Obama's failed policies.

[AZGrizFan]

Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

[grizzaholic]

In order for him to get "schooled" wouldn't he have to actually attend a class?

[Chizzang]

Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

I'm reading up on this after ^ your post AZ
Pretty damn fascinating actually
I will report back my findings - but suffice to know the essence of what you say
when googled leads to some really cool articles

[JohnStOnge]

I've got to say that in looking at how GDP has changed over a fairly long term I don't see a clear trend towards a consistent slowing rate of increase over time. See graph below. The black line is GDP 1960 - 2012. You can see the sharp disturbance in 2008 but otherwise it doesn't look like the most recent 30 years (which would be back through 1985 with 2013 and 2014 not being shown) were characterized by a generally slower growth rate than the 25 years prior to that back to 1960. To zoom in on the chart so you can see the years better go to http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2013/0 ... uy-growth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, scroll down to the chart, and click on the chart to get an enlarged version. 1985 is where the "k" in "Bank" is under the x axis. Again: Focus on the black line as that is the line showing the GDP trend.

[Baldy]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04 ... -expected/

Contrasting Reagan's successful recovery job growth with Obama's failed policies.

Can't wait till kalm sees this...

[YoUDeeMan]

when googled leads to some really cool articles

Chizz's new nickname: The Missing Link

[kalm]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04 ... -expected/

Contrasting Reagan's successful recovery job growth with Obama's failed policies.

Can't wait till kalm sees this...

Yeah…Obama is Reagan lite. Capital gains and high end taxes historically low, financial markets under-regulated, massive investments in defense, etc.

Just different types of socialists.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/ ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one big difference I see is that Volcker restricted the money supply and now we have QE. It would seem Volcker's method would be better for the long run.

Oh, and speaking of government control of markets:

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals? The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.

Scott Walker and Ron Reagan's version of socialism is more freer I suppose.

[kalm]

Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

Good post Z.

[Pwns]

I agree with Z, but let's keep that point in mind when we are tempted to say that Obama "cleaned up a Republican mess".

[Ibanez]

Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

Good point.

[CID1990]

Can't wait till kalm sees this...

Yeah…Obama is Reagan lite. Capital gains and high end taxes historically low, financial markets under-regulated, massive investments in defense, etc.

Just different types of socialists.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/ ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one big difference I see is that Volcker restricted the money supply and now we have QE. It would seem Volcker's method would be better for the long run.

Oh, and speaking of government control of markets:

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals? The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.

Scott Walker and Ron Reagan's version of socialism is more freer I suppose.

Your (and many other lefties') fear of Scott Walker is duly noted.

[AZGrizFan]

I've got to say that in looking at how GDP has changed over a fairly long term I don't see a clear trend towards a consistent slowing rate of increase over time. See graph below. The black line is GDP 1960 - 2012. You can see the sharp disturbance in 2008 but otherwise it doesn't look like the most recent 30 years (which would be back through 1985 with 2013 and 2014 not being shown) were characterized by a generally slower growth rate than the 25 years prior to that back to 1960. To zoom in on the chart so you can see the years better go to http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2013/0 ... uy-growth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, scroll down to the chart, and click on the chart to get an enlarged version. 1985 is where the "k" in "Bank" is under the x axis. Again: Focus on the black line as that is the line showing the GDP trend.

Not sure what your graph is showing, but everything from EVERY economist I've ever heard speak says just the opposite, John.

[kalm]

Yeah…Obama is Reagan lite. Capital gains and high end taxes historically low, financial markets under-regulated, massive investments in defense, etc.

Just different types of socialists.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/ ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one big difference I see is that Volcker restricted the money supply and now we have QE. It would seem Volcker's method would be better for the long run.

Oh, and speaking of government control of markets:



Scott Walker and Ron Reagan's version of socialism is more freer I suppose.

Your (and many other lefties') fear of Scott Walker is duly noted.

As is your Walker fanboism.

I can't wait for a Walker-Clinton election. The differentiation would be epic!

[Chizzang]

I agree with Z, but let's keep that point in mind when we are tempted to say that Obama "cleaned up a Republican mess".

This ^
Other than the much hated "affordable Care Act"
and some ridiculous appointments - stunningly bad appointments in fact
it's looked an awful lot like Business as Usual to me

[Baldy]

Your (and many other lefties') fear of Scott Walker is duly noted.

As is your Walker fanboism.

I can't wait for a Walker-Clinton election. The differentiation would be epic!

My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

[Chizzang]

As is your Walker fanboism.

I can't wait for a Walker-Clinton election. The differentiation would be epic!

My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

[kalm]

My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

Agreed. But let the partisans know this. They get really upset!

[Chizzang]

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

Agreed. But let the partisans know this. They get really upset!

What I think confuses people is that at the "STATE LEVEL" quite a bit of difference can exist
if you examine the states of Washington vs. Wisconsin and look at the differences in laws and practices
The difference are pretty obvious and in some cases quite dramatic

But once they go National and have a Senate and a House and GIANT LOBBY influences
standing in front of them 24/7
The game changes dramatically
and they end up "falling in line" fairly meekly and quickly

Even Lord Emperor Reagan ran California quite a bit differently than he ran the office of the President
This has been written about MANY MANY times

[Baldy]

My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

That is true to a certain extent, Cleetus, but we're discussing core principles and philosophies here, not what happens when X becomes president.

[kalm]

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

That is true to a certain extent, Cleetus, but we're discussing core principles and philosophies here, not what happens when X becomes president.

Some of us are discussing both. You know...rhetoric versus reality and all that jazz.

[Chizzang]

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

That is true to a certain extent, Cleetus, but we're discussing core principles and philosophies here, not what happens when X becomes president.

If "core principles" amount to basically just talk...
I'm not sure what the value is - other than the joy of rhetoric

It's like Cheney talking about Patriotism
While he skipped the draft (something like 5 times)
Or Bama selling "change" and providing status quo en mass

Sure the party sheep love the rhetoric but it amounts to nothing - Squat - Zilch in practice
Wall Street as exhibit "A"

[kalm]

Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I blame 93.

[Baldy]

Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of rhetoric vs. reality.

I'm sure a large bulk of those +600,000 jobs under Reagan were DoD, while a good chunk of those -600,000 under 0bama are state and local government jobs, as well as the sequester. GIGO