Obama's Farwell Address

boo hoo. Growth is a rotten apple to you compared to the biggest tank this side of the great depression.

 

Once again you try to compare a recession to a recession recovery. If you compare Obama's recovery to Reagan's or anyone elses in the long history of America's boom and bust economy you will see that Obama's was an abject failure and Trump inherits an economy in extreme malaise. A growth rate under 2% is economic stagnation.

 

Compare the 09 recovery to that of the 1930s depression recovery. It was a lot closer in comparison than what Reagan had to deal with.

You're so blinded, you think a recovering economy is worse than the economy obama inherited that just saw the largest bust this side of the great depression. That just shows your partisan blinders.
A 2% growth if far better than the sinking ship of a decade ago. But keep them blinders on.

 

Obama's failed economic policies are on display. Eight years of 2% or less growth is an undefendable record. Reagan inherited an arguably worse situation and his policies led to robust economic growth that lasted for decades. Watch and learn as Trump does the same

 

Source on inherited economies. Or we'll assume you just made it up.

EDIT:
Here: Now we'll assume you made it up.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...Osiu9u1sAlZ6BM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=213&vet=1&w=350

EDIT2:
Here: If you want to see what a real bad job was. Look at bush's numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_...ia/File:Job_Growth_by_U.S._President_-_v1.png

 

Bush was not a conservative.
Let's compare a conservative recovery to a liberals, apple to apple.

"When Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter in '81, things were actually worse economically compared to when Obama took over from George W. Bush in '08.

Consider these three important comparisons of economic indicators, then and now:

- Unemployment was at 10.8% versus 7.7%

- Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was at 13.5% versus 2.7%

- Interest rates (prime rate) was at 21.5% versus 3.25%

In other words, Reagan inherited a bigger mess. Yet, there's this chart of job growth:

Obama v Reagan Net Jobs"

Net job growth has declined under Obama. And by the end of the second year of their terms as President, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%.

So, how did Reagan manage it? Across-the-board tax cuts, non-defense spending cuts, a restrained monetary supply, and deregulation.

What's Obama done? Tax increases, spending increases, a massive money-supply increase through “quantitative easing,” and an explosive increase in regulations.

Game, set, and match to Ronald Reagan- and a sound, conservative economic policy."

http://ijr.com/2014/04/131256-simple-graph-compares-reagan-obamas-recoveries/

 

By today's standards, Reagan was also a liberal. Increased debt/deficit, raised taxes after cutting them, increased SSI taxes.
I showed the chart of the recession each had. Obamas recession was deeper.

One inherited run away inflation. One inherited the largest bubble bust since the great depression.
Argue to your blue in the face about which was better. The chart I showed did show Reagan had more job growth.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/

 

The link I gave you compared and contrasted Reagan and Obama's polar opposite policies and you just can't argue with results. Reagan 7% vs Obama 2%

 

I said Reagan grew more. With liberal policies. Except for the trickle down, that never trickled.
But the economies inherited weren't the same. One was inflationary that had to be curbed.
The other was a bust, where the economy needed boosting.

If you want more apples to apples, you need to compare to the recovery of the great depression. Which really didn't recover until WW2.

IMO, Reagan needed to bring about recession type economy to bring down the massive inflation just prior.

 

Reagan inherited a bigger mess that was long term not just a bubble burst and his conservative approach led to a 7% economy. Obama's socialist approach led to a 2% economy and all the excuses you can come up with for his failure are just that, excuses.

 

U Rah Rah, U Rah Rah. Blah blah blah.
Reagan put in a socialist approach. A fact you simply ignore.

 

Now I've heard the ultimate in leftist revisionist history, calling Reagan a socialist.

Reagan; "America is the bright city on the hill" 7% economy.

Obama"A white man's greed leaves a world in need" 2% economy.

Nuff said.

 

I think I said that to you earlier also. He would be considered left, I think is what I said, in today's world.
He increased taxes, increased gov't, increased the deficit. Sounds like what ya'll have been calling socialist. Just using the rights own words.

 

You really need to get better informed before you spout off and obviously don't understand the issue.

"Reagan’s initial tax plan was an across-the-board cut in individual-income-tax rates of 23 percent, to be phased in over three years, coupled with a reduction in the corporate rate, and the eventual indexation (starting in 1985) of the income thresholds defining the tax brackets. When fully phased in, the top rate for individuals was to be 50 percent (down from 70 percent), and the lowest rate was to drop from 14 to 11 percent."

Reagan wanted to couple the tax cuts with deep, and permanent, spending reductions on the domestic side of the federal budget. And, in his first year, he was quite successful in this regard, securing $131 billion in spending cuts over three years in the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. After that initial effort, however, it became a much harder slog, as House Democrats, led by Speaker Tip O’Neill, dug in their heels to protect as many of their favored programs as they could. In 1982, a year-long standoff between the parties over fiscal matters eventually resulted in a compromise tax and spending plan. Reagan agreed to a tax increase — mainly in terms of scaling back depreciation deductions for corporations — in exchange for promised spending reductions, which never materialized. The 1982 tax hike reversed about one-third of the revenue loss from the 1981 tax cuts while keeping the Reagan cuts in the individual-income-tax rates."
Democrats and media point to1982 as evidence that even Reagan wouldn’t fit in with today’s anti-tax GOP. But that’s a terribly flawed reading of the historical record. Reagan consistently pushed for lower taxes and lower spending throughout his presidency; in 1982, he saw an opportunity, in a politically divided Congress, to give a little on taxes — in the aftermath of the very large tax cut the year before — in exchange for even deeper spending cuts. He later considered this deal one of his worst mistakes as president because he had failed to secure an airtight plan to ensure that the cuts would actually be implemented. It is also clear that Reagan would never have agreed to the 1982 deal if the 1981 tax cuts had not already been enacted. The 1982 tax hike did not undo in any way the positive growth effects achieved by the 1981 individual-income-tax cuts.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425106/taxes-trump-no-reagan-james-c-capretta

 

As I said, blah blah blah.
After those tax cuts, he cut out many loopholes. Effectively raising taxes. He raised SSI taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
I even gave you this link before.
All we're doing is beating a dead horse. You have your worldview and I have mine.
Reagan did good. I already said that. But he didn't do it as a hard nose conservative as you are trying to portray.

 

Reagan was the quintessential conservative. His main flaw that he himself admitted was that he tried to compromise with Democrats and thought they would keep their word in gentleman's agreements. Some of us learned from his mistakes and know that compromise with Democrats and expectations that they will uphold their end of a deal are an illusion.

 

He knew his tax cuts were causing the deficit to increase.
So after the tax cuts, he closed many loop holes to bring back tax revenue.

I will agree, his trickle down method was meant for the rich, which is conservative.

 

Raw hatred? I just want the guy out of the Washington because he hasn't done diddly in 8 years but improve his golf score.

 

Trickle down is slang for supply side economics and it benefits everyone the rich deal with. Think of the countless jobs when a rich person has a mansion built. Carpenters, plumbers, electrician, saw mill workers, truck drivers, durable goods producers, carpet layers, landscapers on and on and on. I could fill a page. Every time a rich person spends, jobs are created and wealth "trickles down".

 

Every time anyone spends it creates jobs. The more people spending, the more jobs needed. It doesn't have to be just rich people.

 

Maybe he should have taken his own advice for the last 8 years like telling Trump not to use so many executive orders to by pass congress

 

True enough but poor people spending on rent and basic life necessities employed far fewer than wealthy people building mansions and buying multiple automobiles, planes, boats, luxury RVs, eating at expensive restaurants, playing golf , staying in five star hotels and taking very expensive vacations. A friend of mine put his kids through college just by being an employee of an outfit that built a mansion and compound that took years to complete on a lake where I live. That's supply side economics personified. Now those kids will have better jobs and make more money and create more jobs and the cycle spirals up and up and up.

 

There aren't enough wealthy people spending to keep the economy humming. In spite of the fact they have been getting more of the pie and the middle and lower class have been getting less of it. In other words, the wealthy are hoarding it and not spending it. So, lets get middle and poor more money so they to can spend to keep others employed.
But when the wealthy have the mansions built, then they start putting more into stocks or other investments. Which create next to nothing in terms of jobs. Not even a broker is needed today.

 

You get middle class and poor having more money by having an economic system that creates jobs not by taking money from the rich and passing it out like candy. Putting money in stocks and other investments helps companies grow and prosper by infusing capital which in turn provides employment for middle class and poor as they themselves move up the socioeconomic ladder. Again society spirals up.

 

Yet, somehow, it failed. The strongest middle class and working class we've had in this country was after WW2 up to the 1970s. Since then, the middle class has shrunk. The wealth gap has increased. The wealthy aren't creating jobs. Putting more wealth in the wealthy's hands doesn't create more jobs, putting money in the people who need it and will spend it is where the economy rises.

Much of the growth we'd seen for 25+yrs prior to the crash was voodoo. It was credit expansion. Raising the debt of every American, to keep up with what they had or wanted. Real wages have been stagnant and falling for decades.
Why, the wealth climbed up to the top and it stayed there for investment.