Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:09 UTC
Legal Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is "flat, unadulterated theft".
Permalink for comment 438902
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screwed again"
Member since:

"P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? "

Y'know, you really can't just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.

Not making anything up. Perhaps it's my fault for trying to be too succinct.

Change in Debt/GDP (like I said "by percentage")
Bush II (R): +27.2%
Clinton (D): -9.7%
Bush I (R): +15%
Reagan (R): +20.6%
Carter (D): -3%
Ford/Nixon (R/R): -2.8%
Kennedy/Johnson (D/D): -16.6%

So, I guess I stand corrected. Reagan had the second largest increase in debt as a percentage of any modern president. I guess I heard that stat before Bush II's 2nd term was completed, and the Tea Party failed to enlighten me since then.

Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you're not like other Reagan-haters to whom I've pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn't as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)

I will never disparage the CBO. I believe what they say, be it about deficits or how the health care legislation reduces them. I'm never selective about that.

Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).

The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.

Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).

The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.

The wars were not on the books before he took office, he inherited the greatest economic disaster since the great depression. Paul Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics, and he supports even a second stimulus.

Still, this is just academic. Perhaps the only thing that Dick Cheney and Paul Krugmen agree on is that "Deficits don't matter". One of those guys won a nobel prize for economics by the way.

Strangely, there was no tea party to "refudiate" Cheney for that statement. Sometimes I wonder if the teabaggers want limited government, or government limited to conservatives ;)

Yes, sure, the economy is bad - but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don't).

I was born two months later, but I don't remember the Civil War either if you want to look at it that way.

When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.

You forgot about the Bush I recession, which was followed by 8 years of prosperity under Clinton.

Also, you forgot to mention that the "Carter Recession" was official in 1982, which was the second year of Reagan's term.

That is a popular myth, which is cogently debunked here:

... and on many other sites ;)

A lot of people make that mistake, though.

Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge - look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.

I bear neither hatred nor much of an inner geek. I am just interpreting the data and calling it like I see it.

Even Bush Sr. (famously) referred to Reaganomics as "Voodoo-Economics", and as we saw in August '08, the final verdict on that was not pretty.

It really doesn't matter to me much how "most Americans" view Reagans legacy. Most Americans are skeptical or non-believers in climate change, evolution, Obama being a Christian, Obama being American, and under who's watch TARP was passed.

What would a poll about Jim Crow in South Carolina 1960 show?

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.

Again, largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover (R) taught us that not spending is a disastrous policy in such circumstances.

Those who do not understand history are destined to want to repeat it.

Besides, this congress can't get anything passed. Under Reagan about 6% of legislation went to filibusterer. Now it's more like 40%.

Also, TARP was as big as the Stimulus, passed under Bush, and benefited no one but the people who were deregulated into precipitating the crisis we find ourselves in today.

* See That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama's "spend us into prosperity" strategy at work.

Your assertion that the chart proves Obama is increasing the national debt disproportionately is a misrepresentation of the data.

Obama spent a few billion bailing out GM, and 780 billion on the stimulus whereas bush spent 700 billion on TARP, about another trillion on bail outs, a several trillion on tax cuts, and about a trillion on both wars.

Check out this article on MSN about how the total cost of the Bush era was about 12 Trillion (with a capitol "T") dollars.

40% of Obama's stimulus spending was in tax cuts (republican platform), and if you like the CBO you must agree that health care reform reduces the deficit, so that cannot count against obama by your metrics.

The bottom line here is that blaming Obama for the national debt is about as fair as blaming him for the mortgage meltdown of '08, the wars, the bush tax cuts, and the bush bailouts.

** See Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.

Still don't care much for public opinion polls. Still, by your own reference FDR blows Reagan out of the water in everything but a few recent public opinion polls (see also: biased and unscientific).

FDR's margin of victory increases when you discount the opinions of the laity.

Since the only fact you disagreed with me on was the debt number, which I have just clarified, then can I assume we are in agreement on everything else?

For instance, you must be against extending the Bush tax cuts (the ones increasing the debt which were passed through reconciliation).

Finally, here's another fun fact:

The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:

By the way, this was in 11/08. The S&P dropped another 10% before Obama was inaugurated.

Edited 2010-09-01 10:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1