Obama is no Reagan

[fabes0011]

People who can't stand it that another has more than they do. So, they get the government to take money from others and give it to them through welfare and etc. Hard work and learning to become better and more efficient worker with networking added too. This philosophy would help to get a better job and more money for you and your family.

[MrTabby5000]

Reagan was for nobody but for the wealthy.

[AirCargoHeavy]

Not only is Obama no President Reagan, Obama's supposed eloquence is more the result of reverbs and styrofoam Greek columns than anything born from inspiration. He's an effete, effeminate pretender to the Presidency and a disgrace to it.

[doctorpsycho1960]

Obama is the anti-Reagan. Reagan crippled the government, cut rich people's taxes, gutted vital services and tripled the national debt. Obama will restore the government to complete functionality, restore the graduated income tax, rebuild our infrastructure and balance the budget.

[Barch78]

@doctorpsycho1960

Unbelieveable! Reagan did have a distrust for government. If he crippled it, no harm done! Cutting "Rich people's" taxes ended up raising revenue for the government. Why this hatred for the rich? They pay most of the taxes. What do you consider "vital services"? Welfare? Entitlements? Debt is tied to spending. Reagan's deal with the Democrats was misguided. They were supposed to CUT spending as he agreed to a tax increase. They reneged! Obama wants to divide us.

[doctorpsycho1960]

@Barch78 "If he crippled it, no harm done". There is your faulty premise right there.

It's not unrelated to the right-wing notion that any amount of damage done to the biosphere is irrelevant, because it can always absorb more punishment.

And no, Reagan's tax cuts did not raise government revenues. You can say that over and over (you have for the last 30 years), but it won't come true.

[Barch78]

What does biosphere have to do with this? Facts: Revenue in 1980: 956 Billion. In 1988 it was 1.154 Trillion with tax cuts. Fact is when you reduce excessive tax rates, you stimulate growth, reduces tax avoidance, and shift more of the tax burden to the so called rich. Clinton's 1993 tax increase had the opposite effect. Don't believe it, watch for all the economic activity that happens this year because the "rich" try to avoid tax increases next year as the Bush tax cuts don't get renewed.

[MrTabby5000]

@Barch78

then why was there a deficit when he left office of 4 trillion?reagan loved spending money as much as the democrats,but reagan wasted the money on star wars that didnt even work,

[Barch78]

@MrTabby5000 4 Trillion? It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

[MrTabby5000]

@Barch78

yes he entered with a debt of 2 trillion(carter) and left with a debt of 4.5 trillion,he didn't want to balance the budget.Look it up.

[hoosier44]

Star Wars didnt work? There wasn't one you Moron. That was a trick on the Russians. You probably weren't even born yet. Don't comment on stuff when you don't know what the F*** youre talking about.

[MrTabby5000]

@Barch78

and causing deficits that went through the roof.Yes look at history he cut the wealthy taxes and the deficits went up.

[AtlasShruggery]

The US unemployment rate was 7.2% and falling when Ronald Reagan took office. Unemployment soared to 10.8% after two years of Trickle Down Reaganomics. Unemployment under Reagan never fell significantly below 7% until after Volker got inflation under control and the Republicans lost the Senate in the 1986 midterm elections.

[Zakdayak]

@AtlasShruggery Once again, well put. People forget the '82 recession, Reagan's 49% approval and skip right to the '84 disater for the Dems and then forget entirely about the Senate in '86.

[MrTabby5000]

@AtlasShruggery

Oh yes trickle down just didnt trickle.

[Zakdayak]

And sorry, it's a fact that the upper 1% are richer, so stop trying to enforce political correctness. Facts are facts. I don't care about why you think I'm raising them.

[amielrox]

And thank god for you he isn't cos if was like reagan the cons would have their great hero's lies exposed

[redfoxbennaton]

Of course they were both crummy presidents. Ray gun hates poor people and science.

[ajc55ny]

spoken like a complete moron. Reagan did not hate poor people and to suggest such a thing points to a clearly addled capacity to think critically

[AtlasShruggery]

Fortunately for all of us Obama is no Reagan. Most of our problems with terrorism are the result of blowback from Reagan's idiotic policy of selling weapons to the Islamic terrorists and coddling murderous dictators.

[ajc55ny]

you need to dial back the dosage on your hallucinogenics. Most of our problems with terrorism have almost nothing at all to do with Reagan. Were you even alive when Reagan was President? I sure doesn't sound like it.

[AtlasShruggery]

I lived through the regime of corrupt Hollywood airhead Ronald Reagan & his Trickle Down Reaganomics. I watched Reagan demonize poor people, raise payroll taxes on working folks & give the money to the defense contractors, oil companies & trust fund babies that funded his political career.

Have you forgotten how Reagan traded missiles for hostages to the Iranian ayatollahs? Hove you forgotten how Reagan armed Saddam Hussein? Have you forgotten Reagan's support for death squads in Nicaragua?

[Zakdayak]

@AtlasShruggery Good point. They need to be reminded of the Real Reagan record. They forget things like selling weapons to Iran & invading Grenada "coincidentally" after having to withdraw from Lebanon. This stuff is relevant.

[AtlasShruggery]

RepubliCons have spent millions of dollars and the last 20 years trying to spin Ronald Reagan as some kinda economic genius rather than the corrupt corporatist tool that Reagan actually was. They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obscure Reagan's real legacy and give him credit for things that he deserves no credit for.

[ajc55ny]

This is just a left wing myth. Reagan's economic policies proved once and for all that across the board, permanent cuts in income tax rates lead to greater economic growth than deficit spending or targeted tax cuts. Obama is learning this one the hard way, isn't he? Reagan created 40 million jobs, one of which I am still in, 25 yrs later. You are just loser and probably a personal failure who simply never could stomach the fact that REAGAN WAS RIGHT!

[Zakdayak]

@ajc55ny I'm supposed to spend all my time addressing your points while you don't mine? I'm not the average weak Democrats, think again. Before I lift a finger, tell me where I went wrong. We ran deficits through two Republican adminsitartions (Reagan, Bush I) and then again through GW. If the Laffer curve was correct, the deficits would have gone down. Was I wrong about the upper 1% being richer? Am I wrong on those two things??

[ajc55ny]

@zak, yes you are wrong. The Laffer curve in not incorrect. The reasons deficits continued is because Congress failed to reign in spending. This has been very well established. Both Republican and Democrat Congresses failed to institute any spending discipline. But the premise that across the board permanent cuts in tax rates leads to greater economic growth and larger tax receipts to the Federal government has never been refuted. So yes, you are wrong. Get off the lame class warfare.

[Zakdayak]

I wasn't born yesterday. The whole explanation given by Jarvis and Reagan (I 'm from California, this stuff comes from my home State), was that by cutting taxes, it would force the various departments to spend less BECAUSE UP TO THAT POINT THEY HAD BEEN SPENDING FRIVOLOUSLY. This ignored the fact that the State of California spends money on good things like education and aid to the handicapped/elderly. We ran surpluses and we paid for everything necessary as went along.

[Zakdayak]

@ajc55ny Before Reagan for example, Community Collge was free. Now, we have to float a 7 Billion dollar note to pay for more Jails to house inmates due to our draconian penal code. That means WE HAVE TO PAY INTEREST. The Republican policies force everything onto the CREDIT CARD. That's why I said 2 adminstrations, man, if you were right, then one of them would have succeeded, but even when Republicans controled ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOV't (HELLO) the DEBT WENT UP 2 TRILLION.

2 Trillion!

[Alexr197]

@Zakdayak The Left currently controls our House, Senate, and Oval Office. The Democrats have raised our National Debt to an all time high of $11 trillion in just a year. There's enough blame to go around for everyone.

[Zakdayak]

@Alexr197 Democrats are not the Left. You'd think the fact that the Democratic Party opposed (for the most part) Single Payer and was lukewarm about public option would have given you a clue. The Dems are mostly Corporatists who are either Centrists or just Left of center on a few things.

The Democrats are not "raising the National Debt" Most of it comes from the fact that people are earning shit right now coupled with the fact that the rich pay way less than they once did.

[Alexr197]

@Zakdayak Thanks for the correction. I should've said Liberals.

[Zakdayak]

And the receipts went down during the Reagan years. Why? You're forgetting one thing: The Lafffer curve predicts receipts going up. MORE taxes are supposed to be collected. But you trying to switch the focus to expenditures. What I'm saying is that 1) More money did not COME IN. 2) The rich got richer, the prediction that every one would benefit was wholly wrong. Because it didn't happen. Check the figures, except for a slight bumpo during Clinton, Middle Classes wages are stagnant.

[AtlasShruggery]

Typical Republican. Ignorant of history and weak at math.

40 million jobs? Are you kidding? What's your source? Faux News? The fact is that millions more jobs were created under Clinton's policies than were created under Reagan's despite the fact that Reagan tripled the national debt.

[ajc55ny]

@ atlas...Reagan was simply the best President during the 20th century without exception. Sorry. I watched and listened, too. There were chumps around back then who tried to make Reagan into a monster, kinda like you are. I remember Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers. Wasn't that great the way he pointed out that their greater duty was to the safety of the flying public and the welfare of the country and not their labor contract? I loved every second of that.

[Zakdayak]

I seem to prone to typos on this page.

[Zakdayak]

Of course Obama is not Reagan. All comparisons are in terms of political influence, especially on a newer generation of Americans and a possible realignment. Reagan got Dems to vote and support him. Reagan created a generation of Reps. It's early, but perhaps Obama will do the same from the other side.

Also, there is a difference between gov't planning "our lives" and gov't providing assistance.

[Barch78]

When government provides you with "assistance" they earn the right to plan your life.

Ie. If they pay your health care costs, they have the right to verify you are living a "healthy" life. Do you smoke, drink, eat trans fats, drink sugared sodas, and do you get enough exercise. Open the door to government help is giving up your freedom.

[Zakdayak]

They do not "earn a right" Gov'ts do not posess rights.

It depends on how things are structured. For example, if we put strings on the banker's bailouts (Where's the "right" to plan their "life", the first tarp $ was used on corp jets and bonuses) then the Reps scream "They'all go to Europe" and "You kill Capitalism!" But if you poor on welfare then (the Reps insist) the gov't gets to submit you to drug tests and interviews.

[Barch78]

"Gov'ts do not posess rights."

There is something we can both agree on.

[Zakdayak]

It is not actual assistance (my mother's life isn't planned, socialsecurity receipient) but what the details are. I dodn't deal in conspiracy theory but facts.

[Barch78]

Reagan had a charm about him when he spoke and was able to win those from the other side as he did me, a Carter voter. Obama lectures with an angry tone punctuated with that wagging index finger. He has a lot of work to do to warm up to Reaganesque.

[ajc55ny]

You make a distinction with no difference. When govt provides for your life, they necessarily set the rules by which they provide for you and this is no different than planning your life for you. Govt planning doesn't just happen through funding programs to do things for you either. It happens through taxation, too. They tax behavior they don't want. Like cigarette smoking, for example. They take the decision to smoke or not out of your hands with taxation. That isn't freedom, is it?

[Zakdayak]

@ajc55ny Govt in our sytem is supposed to be by the people for the people. We can argue about what constitutes true incentatives to get off welfare (it isn't MCDonald's), but you can't argue about the fairness of the tax structure. You can go back on YT and watch the Reagan-Mondale debate to understand Reagan's promises. 1)Deficits would eventually go down 2) The rich will hire more people and everyone will prosper. Since the 1980 the upper 1% is 700% richer. MiddleClass. wages the same or worse

[ajc55ny]

I need to correct you on some facts. Deficits did eventually go down. In fact, they went down so far, they created budget surplus projections years later. Jobs were created. I have been working in one of those jobs created. I was hired in 1984 and I still work in that company. Your static analysis of rich and middle class are meaningless. Your analysis assumes no movement between classes as if they are the same people. Trust me, they arent. We are far, far wealthier at all income levels

[ajc55ny]

I would also like to add that the tax system is quite progressive. Visit the IRS website and download the files. They will show you how the tax burden is distributed by income class. These days, the cut off is about 50k of AGI. If you make less than that, you pay no Federal Income tax. That's about 40% of the country. Check it out for yourself. Don't believe me....Go look and see for yourself because it is obvious to me you haven't done so already

[hardrockin96]

Great video!!