Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You obviously have no idea how Reagan "improved" the economy.
inflation fell because he removed gas and other things from the index...if you recall it was gas that went up... because of Nixon and Kissinger's work to create OPEC.
The economy was in a malaise for most of Reagan's time but with his tripling the spending finally things picked up....
Many economists link Reagan's success to the acts of Carter...
In short Reagan was a disaster of a president.
Oil crashed to $10/barrel during Reagan's administration after being over $30 under Carter, which for back then was like $100/barrel today. Reagan did have a severe recession in 1982 because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to the stratosphere to end the inflation crisis. It was a temporary but necessary recession to end the stagflation of the Carter years. By the end of Reagan's first term, the economy was on the upswing.
Obama on the other hand has brought us nothing but stagnation during his entire first term, and tells us we need to accept this as the "new normal". He was handed a huge mess just like Reagan was, but under Reagan we saw progress. Under Obama, we have basically just hit bottom and have been bouncing ever since (hence the sporadic recoveries followed by return to near recessionary conditions over the past four years). We need a President again who believes in this country and believes that better days are ahead of us.
As for Reagan's son, he knew him better than any CD bloviator. Believe me, if he said he was showing signs of Alzheimer's, he was showing signs of Alzheimer's. BTDT.
The angry son that has done nothing but bash his father? The son who has done nothing of note? yes I always accept the word of an angry and very ungrateful do nothing.
The biggest difference between Obama and Reagan? Reagan commanded the respect of both parties.
Oil crashed to $10/barrel during Reagan's administration after being over $30 under Carter, which for back then was like $100/barrel today. Reagan did have a severe recession in 1982 because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to the stratosphere to end the inflation crisis. It was a temporary but necessary recession to end the stagflation of the Carter years. By the end of Reagan's first term, the economy was on the upswing.
Obama on the other hand has brought us nothing but stagnation during his entire first term, and tells us we need to accept this as the "new normal". He was handed a huge mess just like Reagan was, but under Reagan we saw progress. Under Obama, we have basically just hit bottom and have been bouncing ever since (hence the sporadic recoveries followed by return to near recessionary conditions over the past four years). We need a President again who believes in this country and believes that better days are ahead of us.
Seriously? We've had a lot of inflation, but $10 in 1982 dollars is roughly about $22 today, not $100.
Obama .....just wants to be cool...hanging out with Hollywood people why Reagan was a Holywood actor who didn't want to be cool but was President for the people, not for himself!
Maybe you should ask David Stockman, Reagans budget director if his administration was a success, according to him and other economists it was a failure. By the way Reagan was also a Keynesian, huge tax cuts, huge deficits, few cuts in spending.
The White House was not happy – senior aides trotted him off to the press room to recant, sort of.
But he lasted through Reagan’s first term, then went off to become a successful businessman. He also wrote “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed†– mainly a slam at Republicans in Congress for their failure to push for deep budget cuts. The result of tax cuts without accompanying cuts in government spending were rising deficits.
Clinton had the advantage of the Internet boom.
The national debt increased by $1 trillion during the Clinton years.
You just can't give credit to a democrat can you?
This, in my opinion, is the problem with America. People like you who want to make everything partisan and take all the credit for something. Of couse, Clinton wasn't solely responsible for the economic boom of the 90s, but he managed to milk it properly in a way where the budget was balanced, jobs were created, and the country was in great shape.
Compare that with Bush, who took a booming economy in a mild recession with a buget suprlus and squandered it all. I mean seriously come one, there isn't a person alive who wouldn't want to go back to the Clinton years. Bush and Republicans have become a cancer to this country, slowly eroding it by division.
Give it a rest already. The distinction is clear here. When the economy booms, republicans take credit. When the economy goes bust, its all the democrats fault.
Oil crashed to $10/barrel during Reagan's administration after being over $30 under Carter, which for back then was like $100/barrel today. Reagan did have a severe recession in 1982 because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to the stratosphere to end the inflation crisis. It was a temporary but necessary recession to end the stagflation of the Carter years. By the end of Reagan's first term, the economy was on the upswing.
First of all, inflation started during the Johnson years and became prevalent during Ford, which Carter inherited. Second, the reason the price of Oil crashed was because Reagan sold arms to the Iranians and suddenly we were cool with them. And Third, the fed back then Paul Voeckler, who was a democrat, brought an end to inflation, not Reagan.
Quote:
Obama on the other hand has brought us nothing but stagnation during his entire first term, and tells us we need to accept this as the "new normal".
You do realize from 2001 to 2009, during all of Bush's term, incomes actually declined and he is the first president since Herbert Hoover to have NO NET JOB GROWTH. I know, I know, reality has a liberal bias.
Now, Obama's July, 2012 report shows 142,220,000. a gain of 121,000 in 40 months..3,000 per month (60 per state, woo hoo, 1/7 a Super Wal Mart's avg headcount-celebration, huh!!) . So that is ultra close to NO NET JOB GROWTH.
There are hundreds if not thousands of video clips on YouTube showing millions of liberals marching against Bush policies like the War in Iraq.
That is wanting Bush to fail.
Marching against a war that should have never happened is not the same as marching against policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
