Two recessions. Who did a better job of getting the country out of a recession, Obama or Reagan?

Be Sociable, Share!
Share →

149 Responses to OBAMA VS REAGAN

  1. Matt says:

    Obama is entering the perfect storm as far as baby boomers retiring and those slightly older passing on. It will not be any of his doing, but the mass retirement that will likely begin the end of this year, thru 2020 will make him look like he solved the unemployment problem and got the economy going. Over the same time period there will be a lot of people in there 30s and 40s that may not have anything now, that will inherit there BB parents weath.

    • Mike V. says:

      Baby Boomers are woefully unprepared for retirement and most will have to work into their 70s.

      I’m 41 and own my own business so I’m not impacted by it, but I feel sorry for young professionals in their 20′s and early 30s. Waiting until you are in your 40s to start your rise in your professional career is too long. That younger generation will feel the brunt of the Baby Boomers childish lives long after the last Boomer has moved on to the big peace protest in the sky.

      • And it’s immoral for the government to force the younger people to pay for their elders’ irresponsibility.

        • Mike V. says:

          I agree. Unfortunately, many of the younger generation will be bouncing from job to job, or unable to find a job because an employer can’t bounce an old Boomer out of his job because of the Boomers age. The younger generation is never going to be able to acquire any wealth because of this and when they are older, they will be in the same position as the Boomers.

          • How about lowering taxes and getting rid of the estate tax. I saw the movie “Secretariat” the other day. The owner of the horse farm dies and the son and daughter are fighting over how they are going to pay the $6 million inheritance tax. The son wants to sell. The daughter and owner of Secretariat refused. How ridiculous is it– criminal actually- that the government can tax someobody for his entire life and then, when he dies, tax him again and make it impossible for his heirs to inherit the wealth that he worked so hard to earn? How is that allowed to exist for 15 minutes in a free country? it’s mind boggling to me.

          • Mike V. says:

            Should taxes be lowered? Yes. Americans pay too much tax.

            I have mixed emotions about the estate tax. If one person makes a lot of money with a business and then passes it along to his children when he dies, it is frequently not possible for all of the siblings to make a living on the business once the profits are split amongst the children. It isn’t a viable business model and the parent should have sold the business while he was still alive and split the money up amongst the children and let them try to make their way in society without having something handed to them. Children should not be guraranteed a living because their parent had a business. If the parent wanted to create a bunch of lazy people, and this country has a lot of rich lazy people, he should have created a trust and let the kids have some money while forcing them to find their own way in life.

            There is an old saying, “The first generation builds the business. The second generation runs it into the ground and leaves the mess to the third generation.” It isn’t that the second generation may be bad businiess people. It could be more about the realities of splitting profits in a small business when there wasn’t much money being made anyhow. I own a small business and make a good living at it. If I had to split the profit amongst three children, they wouldn’t be able to make a living off of it. I didn’t have it handed to me and the children shouldn’t have it handed to them.

          • So you want the government to confiscate the property as a favor to the heirs? Boy, I hope that’s not what you’re saying because it’s terrifying to think that anybody would believe the government should decide what’s best for the business and the children. Horrifying, actually.

          • Mike V. says:

            I guess what I am saying is people shouldn’t give their kids a business when they die. No matter how well intentioned it might be, it may not make a lot of sense. They should sell everything before they die, give what they want to the kids in the form of a trust or in cash payments while they are still alive.

            Many small businesses can’t survive once more than one person is taking the profits. They are going to be sold sooner or later so the owner should sell them before the kids run them into the ground and there is little value in the business at that point.

            Here is an even better idea. Instead of giving the kids the business, make the kids buy the business off of you before you die. Let them go to the bank and ask for the money to buy the business off of their parent. At that point, the children will have to think about the annual revenues of the business, overhead and profits before they take over. They might also learn that hard work and smart accounting builds a business and not handouts. A good banker can tell the siblings whether or not their business is viable or not. If it isn’t, the siblings can go to the parent and say, “Thanks but no thanks.”

            What if one of the kids doesn’t want to own the business? Why should the parent saddle the kid with the responsibility? Maybe the kid became a doctor or something.

            It’s really an issue of estate planning.

          • That’s all fine as long as it’s not thje government deciding that I can’t leave my business to my kids. There are thoiusands of great companies in the USA that have been here for several generations, by the way

          • Mike V. says:

            There are probably 100 times more that never made it past the second generation.

          • Who cares? Are you saying the government should confiscate our family businesses for our own good? I sure hope not.

  2. Haas says:

    I am no fan of Obama but it is still too early to tell.

      • Lefty says:

        I’m not going to comment on the article, because as it states, no two recessions are the same and no two recoveries are the same. End of story. A quote from a football coach doesn’t have any bearing on this.
        But I have a feeling even if Obama had single handedly solved unemployment, Steigy would still be unconvinced, therefore your opinion on this matter, to me, means absolutely zero.

      • Scootermojo says:

        Of it’s not too early for you to tell because you base all of your politics and political opinions on one thing: who is a Democrat and who is a Republican…it’s a free country but that’s a sad commentary on the lack of intelligence and utterly indicative of being uninformed/misinformed.

        Here’s a better question: who put us in the recession? Bush or the GOP run government of 2001 to 2006…or both?

        And you conveniently refuse to mention that Reagan greatly contributed the 1990-91 recession with his willy nilly spending in the 80′s.

        • Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in peacetime history and recessions are normal. The one in 1991 was the weakest in decades. I’m not a Republican. I’m a conservative/libertarian. The Republicans come closer to what I believe in and the Democrats rarely come within 100 miles of what I believe in. It doesn’ matter how many times you say that someone who disagrees with you is uninformed. It’s still just YOUR opinion.

        • Ken says:

          At the end of 2006 before the democrats took over Congress, unemployment was at 4.6%; it’s over twice that now. The GDP growth was 3.5%; it’s less than half that now. The deficit, much inflated by that little incident on 9/11/2001 and the aftermath, had declined for three straight years to under $300 million, a quaint figure compared to Obama’s current deficit, which is going to be announced today and is anticipated to be $1.29 trillion. Yeah, Bush really wrecked the economy. 2003-2006 were some of the strongest economic years in US history.

          Reagan’s “willy nilly” spending ended the Cold War. His deficits as a percentage of GDP were miniscule compared to those of the current administration. And John is right, statistically the recession of 1990-91 was one of the most minor on record (despite Clinton’s campaign lie calling it the “worst economy in 50 years”). The growth rate during the last quarter of George HW Bush’s presidency was higher than that achieved during any quarter of the Clinton presidency. Clinton inherited an economy in recovery.

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            2003-2006 was inflated due to the housing bubble. We thought it was strong at the time, but facts have proven it wrong since then.

          • The deomocrats caused the housing bubble. Barney Frank being the main culprit but it started with Jimmy Carter in 1977.

          • Mike says:

            Bush encouraged an “ownership society” he deserves credit as well for causing a housing bubble.

          • He tried in 2005 to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae….Barney Frannk and Todd and the dems wouldn’t hear of it. Franbk’s on tape in 2006 saying he saw no reason to believe that there was a real estate bubble ready to burst.

          • Mike says:

            No one is saying Barney Frank isn’t at fault as well. But in 2005 and 2006 Republicans controlled the House. They could of passed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie with no Democratic support.

          • They didn’t have the votes in the Senate. And Mike it’s could HAVE not could Of.

          • Mike says:

            Vote in the House would of sent a message and possibly saved Republicans in 2008. This term Dems in the house have passed literally hundreds of laws that the Senate hasn’t even debated due to the slower pace of that chamber.

          • Mike says:

            Also the banks who were allowed to sell their mortgages shortly after buying them. Why give out mortgages to qualified people when you’ll immeadiately sell them.

          • The government FORCED them to lend money to people who could never repay them and they unloaded those mortgages as quickly as they could. It began with govt. intervention.

          • Mike says:

            And the banks didn’t have to give out borderline retarded no money down interest only loans for three years adjustable rate loans.

          • The banks were told who to loan money too and they were threatened with more regulations if they didn’t. It began with Jimmy Carter and it was a typical Democrat feel good, stage one thinking plan. Get votes now, worry about the consequences later.

          • Scootermojo says:

            You are completely insane. You credit Republicans for every good thing that happens in this country despite what the true facts are. You blame Democrats for everything bad that happens in this country despite what the factual evidence indicates.

            You fools incorrectly state the housing bubble “caused” Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank…insane, insane, insane. You state the period of economic “growth” from 2003 to 2006 yet it’s strength was clearly a lie as evidenced by todays economy.

            And here’s the kicker: you state Clinton, 4 years AFTER, “inherited” Reagan’s “economy” yet you blame Democrats for the recession that started less than a year after the Dems took control in 2007….gee, it COULDN’T POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS FAULT since they were in basically almost absolute power from ’94 to ’06, right?

            You guys are the real danger to America. You just pull a lever and vote for you side. A Republican can come out and say the world is flat and you’ll believe him and make your argument on blogs and right wing talk radio and Fox News….you guys are completely insane and have the intelligence of an infant. You seriously do.

            A rationale and intelligent person can clearly see that when things are going well that plenty of praise can be heaped onto BOTH parties just as when things are going wrong blame can be put on BOTH parties…but you just don’t want to see that, do you? Thanks for all the problems that you create…my kids, my family and the future generations will give you a nice sarcastic “thank you” to you infants.

          • Thanks for the mature, well thought out, unbiased response.

  3. Walt sulletin says:

    Big difference is that this recession was much worse. The stock market lost 70% of it’s value. It takes a lot longer to get that back. Of course in a right wing column by a right wing blogger you don’t read about the two sides to every story.

    • But Reagan didn’t make it WORSE. Obama has.

      • Gaylin Howards says:

        How so exactly? The stock market is up over 5,000 points. Corporate profits are at their highest since 1997. How exactly is it worse? OK, unemployment rate is about even, but this recession is much worse than the one Reagan had. So explain how Obama has made it worse.

        • Unemployment has gone UP. The stock market had nowhere to go but up and it’s going up now because people know the dems are about to lose control.

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            Unemployment has gone up 0.1%. Basically even. And yes the stock market had plenty room to keep going down. I remember in 2008 when there was a run on banks because people thought that the banks were going to run out of money. That’s scary stuff. Corporate profits are at their highest since 1997. Companies are making a ton of cash right now. So your point that the stock market had nowhere else to go doesn’t mean a thing. It still went up significantly.

          • I think we were promised LOWER unemployment for the trillion dollars that was thrown down the toilet.

          • Scootermojo says:

            now the card carrying neo nazie right wing nutter conservative mindless automaton Limbaugh, Hannity, Quinn and Fox News mouthpiece conveniently changes his argument regarding unemployment from going UP when faced with the actual fact that it has raised 0.1% to a “promise” that was made. Typical of the mindless plugged into their machine of choice…how convenient and how typical when confronted with actual facts that prove their “facts” are nothing more than blatant and biased propaganda and lies.

          • Under Reagan unemployment dropped in the first 2 years. Under Obama it has gone up by.0.1%. Is this complicated?

          • Scootermojo says:

            again, changing the original argument.

          • The Truth Sleuth says:

            Scooter, are you retarded? Obama has made the recession worse. He has spent more than the first 43 presidents COMBINED and still managed to screw the economy up. Accept it, scooter. You Obama apologists are like the kid in kindergarten who thinks no one can beat up his dad. Even though his dad is 5’3″ & 130 pounds, he’s still convinced he can beat up little Joey’s Dad that is 6’9″ and 400 pounds of muscle. You conveniently ignore the truth “just because” you worship your hero.

          • Sportsfan60 says:

            I seem to remember Pres. Bush and his cabinet GAVE the banks 700+ million dollars when the housing deal was going south with NO strings attached to pay it back and nobody even knows where the money was spent and this was taking place BEFORE Obama even took office, but I guess the Republicans dont want to respond to that fiasco…

          • Sportsfan60 says:

            How about the 700+ billion dollars that Pres Bush gave the banks with no strings attached before he left office and nobody knows where the money went once the banks got their share. I guess the Republicans dont want to take that on???????????

          • Bush and some Republicans were involved in the first one and Bush may or may not have gone along with it because that’s what Obama was going to do in January anyway. The repubs voted 177-0 against the second stimulus.

      • Blasto says:

        This is blatantly untrue. Obama has not “made it worse”. In fact, one could argue if not for Obama we’d be in the 2nd Great depression ..or..the Greater Depression. Don’t blame the fireman for the fire there sparky….

        • Right. I forgot about all the jobs he “saved”. Teaschers, firemen cops. All government employees. Government workers have had a great year. I’ll give you that.

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            My job was saved because of stimulus spending and I’m not in the gov’t sector. There were a significant amount of jobs saved and created or else the unemployment rate would be much much higher. No Rep wants to give the stimulus credit for saving/creating a single job, but facts prove otherwise. Look at the last employment numbers. 66,000 private sector jobs were created. 9 straight months of positive private sector job creation. The fact is that yes, gov’t jobs were created early on and those are the jobs that are being lost right now. You should be thrilled that gov’t jobs are being lost and private sector jobs are being created. There were 120,000 gov’t jobs lost last month. That is a good thing. Private sector should be leading the recovery and they are.

          • How much are we paying per job. It woujld have made more sense to throw the money out of airplanes.

      • Meathead says:

        How has Obama made it worse?

        Spare us the Conservative/Republican/Tea Party Patriot/Libertarian talking points.

        • Spending too much and threastening to tax us to death which has made businesses reluctant to invest and hire. After the tsunami in Nobember and if Obamacare is repealed, business will release the trillion dollars that they’ve been sitting on. The stock market is going up becsuse people see the tsunami coming. Common sense would tell you that, if not enough money is being spent, the solution is NOT to make sure that people had LESS money to spend. I would like to see a six month tax holiday and watch the economy go crazy.

          • Meathead says:

            Businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars? Where did you read that bit of pabulum?

          • By ANNIE LOWREY 7/15/10 1:04 PM
            Companies are back to profitability — in part because of the massive layoffs of the past two years. But they are not back to hiring yet, instead holding onto cash and waiting for a stronger recovery, Jia Lynn Yang writes in today’s Washington Post:

            Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.

          • Tim says:

            So its a chicken and the egg thing. They are waiting for the economy to recover before they spend but it won’t recover until they spend.

          • No. They’re wating to see how much of their wealth they’re going to be allowed to keep and how much of it is going to be confiscated by Barney Frank.

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            The stock market has being going up ever since Obama took office. That isn’t a recent thing because of the possibility of Reps taking over in Nov. It was 6,600 when Obama took office and shot to 10,000 by the end of 2009 and that was well before there was momentum to get Reps in Congress.

          • Scootermojo says:

            I’m gonna use your typical misinformed Republican line: it was 14,000 because it was “inherited” by Bush from Clinton. You’ll call me crazy, misinformed…a liberal…whatever makes you feel better and clearly a shortcut to thinking but it’s the EXACT SAME THING you anti-American wacko’s state when it’s mentioned how good the economy was under Clinton…”it was Reagan’s doing”…yeah, 4 years after the fact, huh? right.

          • The expansion began in 1983 and ended in 2001.

    • Ken says:

      This recession worse than the one Reagan inherited? Maybe in some ways, but overall the Carter recesssion was worse.

      The stock market taken by itself is not a great indicator of the economy. Just about every time companies lay off workers, their stock prices rise.

      Reagan inherited an econonmy with both double-digit unemployment and inflation, neither or which we’ve since seen, yet. The prime rate was 20%. Imagine trying to buy a house with interest rates at those levels.

      • Tim says:

        That was the point Ken. High interest rates stifled people willingness to borrow to purchase goods. Less demand meant inflation went down. And we haven’t had a problem with inflation for the last 30 years.

  4. Tim says:

    Apples and oranges. Reagan entered office with a 70% top marginal rate he could cut to spur growth. Currently taxes are at their lowest level post WW2. Plus the banking system wasn’t on crisis mode just before Reagan entered office.

  5. Ochotexto says:

    It wasn’t too early for you before he got elected. You already had your mind made up due to his dad, minister, teleprompter, etc… Reagan was a myth. Ask any working class guy ., if you know any., what they think of him. Also our troops are being shot at by weapons he sold them. Besides all that he started the ., “if you don’t agree with me you’re not an American” routine. False bravado., chicken hawks. The Great Divider. Did wonders for whoever sells those Flag lapel pins though.

    • Who were those working class guys who gave him a 49-1 win in 1984?

      • Mike says:

        And if he was so awesome where were his coat tails? He failed to bring in a Republican House at any point during his Administration?

        • No national talk radio. No Fox news. He was running against the democrats and 98% of the media. That’s what was so mazing about his ability to win 49 states. He had to talk directly to the people and he managed to do it. That’s why they call him The Great Communicator.

          • Ken says:

            The republicans also took control of the Senate when Reagan became president in 1981 for the first time in a long time.

    • colt says:

      First of all, the answer to the question question is so obvious that one hardly needs to say it. But, since you asked: Why not ask who was the better hitter, Babe Ruth or Andy LaRoche? Why not ask who is the better golfer, Arnold Palmer or me? Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century – period. And many of us working stiffs voted for him. Obama is a socialist – period. Those who deny it have there heads so deep in the sand it impossible for them to breathe truth. He is the worst president this country has ever had. I sure hope John is right and he heads back to Illinois where he belongs in a little more than two years.

      The answer is Reagan, of course. I remember what it was like under Carter – I remember all too well. When Reagan took office, it was like America was born again. The economy got turned around and a new spirit of patriotism swept this land.

  6. Joe Bunda III says:

    I had to check the question twice. It seemed to be too easy of an answer so I thought it was a trick….. Let’s see. American capitalism vs. liberal socialism. I’ll take Reagan, every time.

    It wasn’t a trick question after all, just a VERY easy question to answer.

  7. oksteelerfan says:

    John this isn’t about the recession but is some interesting reading on Obamacare.

    A few highlights:
    Penalties on individuals. Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.

    Penalties on families. Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy.

    Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one. (By the way, that equates to $7,600 on the sale of a $200,000 property)

    ObamaCare will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. The tax agency plans to hire 16,500 new auditors, agents and investigators, and to increase enforcement audits. The IRS can confiscate tax refunds, place liens on property and seek jail time if health-related penalties and taxes are not paid.

    President Obama had said people could keep their coverage if they want, yet the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under ObamaCare 8 million to 9 million people will lose their employer-provided coverage.

    • Another screaming example of why the founders would never have approved of an income tax.

      • Mike says:

        They wouldn’t of allowed women to vote or own property, same with blacks. They weren’t Jesus.

        • That’s why they allowed for amendments. Jefferson, Madison and Adams wanted to abolish slavery but knew that they wouldn’t get a constitution. They were confident that it would eventually disappear.

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            Do you have facts on what the founding fathers wanted in the 1700′s? I’m pretty sure that they all owned slaves, so I highly doubt that they would want to abolish it.

          • They wrote a lot of letters in those days. Try reading some history.

          • Mike says:

            Adams maybe. I know we disagree on this but if Jefferson and Madison wanted slavery ended they could of freed their own slaves. No one was stopping them from doing that.

          • Try reading a biography of either one of them. I’ve resad several. It wasn’t as simple as just freeing the slaves and if they had not compromised and allowed for the slave trade to be abolished 20 years after ratification, the southern state would have walked out of the constitutional convention and there would have been two countries…one with slavery written into the constitution.

      • howard says:

        You can make an argument that the policies and shift in philosophy introduced through the Reagan presidency has led us to where we are now. And by the way, the founders would also shit themselves if they saw a Black President..probably more so than if they saw that there is an income tax. They would also soil their pants again if they realized that we’ve become such a corporatist country, one where both parties are ran by lobbyists and special interests. Just sayin.

        • The Founders were opposed to slavery but they were born into it the same way the slaves were. They knew that they wouldn’t have a union if they inisted–at the time–that slavery be abolished.

          Since representation in the House of Representatives was to be based on population, a debate arose over whether slaves should be counted in a state’s population. According to James Madison’s diary, the issue of slavery was the most divisive subject at the convention. While many of the Founding Fathers including George Washington viewed slavery as inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, they knew that there was little chance of abolishing slavery at the time. After all, if those opposed to slavery insisted on its abolition, slave states could have walked out of the convention and formed their own nation with a pro-slavery constitution. So the issue of slavery would require compromise if the United States were to survive. Washington and the other Founders hoped that slavery could be eliminated from the United States once a strong union was formed.

          The compromise that settled the issue of how to count slaves for purposes of representation in the House came to be known as the Three-fifths Compromise. It is sometimes wrongly said that the compromise meant the founders considered slaves as only partial human beings. In fact, the compromise had nothing to do with the human worth of the individual slave. States with slaves wanted to count all of their slaves in the state’s population because that would yield more representatives in Congress. The opponents of slavery, noting that slaves had no rights of citizenship including the vote, argued that slaves should not be counted at all for purposes of representation. In the end, the compromise was to count three-fifths of the state’s slaves in the total population. In another words, for every five slaves, three of would be added to the population count used to determine representation in the House of Representatives.

          The delegates also disagreed over the slave trade. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1789, some northern states had already outlawed slavery within their state borders. These states wanted a ban on the slave trade included in the Constitution. Southern slave states objected to a ban claiming that the slave trade was important to their agricultural economy. Finally, the two sides compromised agreeing to allow the slave trade to continue for twenty years after which time the Congress could regulate it. After 1808, Congress could abolish the slave trade and it did. In fact, by 1798 every state had already outlawed the slave trade on its own anyway (although South Carolina reinstated it in 1803) and eight of the thirteen states abolished slavery during the founding era.

          Slavery, like other thorny issues at the convention, required thoughtful men to develop creative compromises. These compromises preserved the American experiment in self-government that citizens of the United States still enjoy today.

    • Erik says:

      unreal. How can anyone be for this?

      • oksteelerfan says:

        That’s a good question. But like Pelosi said they couldn’t find out what was in it until they passed it. I have an off the wall idea, how about people elected to office by the people for the people actually earn their pay and do their job and know what they’re voting on?

        I had an uncle who died at the age of 80, he never went to a doctor in his life. He also never had health insurance. So I guess they would have jailed him, because I guarantee you he would have refused to buy insurance and he would have refused to go to the doctor.

  8. Jesse says:

    do you even have to ask this question? Since when has socialism ever been better than simple capitalism?

  9. Doug says:

    I’m no ardent Obama supporter, but the way people are saying that Obama is “about to allow the largest tax hike in American history.” isn’t wholly accurate.

    The Bush tax cuts amount to 1/3 of our federal deficit this year by letting them expire we will go back the former tax rate, not initiate new taxes.

    The Dems want to extend the tax cuts for everyone unless you’re over the 200k mark. The Repubs want to extend them all. So really it’s up to the House and Senate to get SOMETHING done (Gasp!) or the whole of the government is responsible, not just Obama.

    • If I paid 100 dollars in taxes in 2010 and I pay 200 in 2011, that;s a 100 dollar increase if you ask me.

      • howard says:

        Did you say that to yourself when your taxes increased under Reagan? And again under Bush, Sr? Or does it only count when a democrat is in office? I guess it’s the same as the people screaming to the rafters that the Obama administration is violating the constitution and impeding on your liberty, except for the fact that the Bush administration did violate the 4th amendment and impede on the personal freedoms of American citizens. But that was ok, right?

        • Some taxes increased under Reagan. Everybody–including blacks–saw their inflation adjusted income go up from 1981-1990. Reagan had to fight with dems and their PR machine–the media. He made compromises and the dems told him there would be 3 dollars in spending reduction for every dollar in tax increases and then they reneged. A president can’t contol the spending. The House does. OBama has made things worse by tripling the deficit and threatening tax increases that have made businesses reluctant to hire and invest.

      • Gaylin Howards says:

        Reps want 2 wars, increases in military, more aircraft carriers and planes and Dems want health care. Reps are getting what they want and so are Dems so the money has to come from somewhere. Please spare me the function of gov’t is to support war and not healthcare. That point has been made and regardless it’s here to stay. The real point is that both sides cannot get everything that they want and keep all of the tax cuts, so they are proposing going back to the taxes that people paid a few years ago that make over $250,000. We aren’t suddenly going to pull our troops out of European military bases and the Middle East and we aren’t going to eliminate social programs for everyone, so we need the money to pay for this stuff. Regardless of what Obama does, he’s going to piss people off. If he raises taxes on the rich, he pisses them off. If he removes social programs, he pisses off the lower and middle class. No matter what the guy does, he’s going to piss someone off. It’s a no win situation and he’s doing what he thinks is best for the country. That’s why he got voted in. If you don’t like it, you’ll have your chance for change in 2012.

        • One term president. Call me cdrazy but I would rather see the money in the hands of the people than in the hands of the idiots from both parties in Washington,

          • Gaylin Howards says:

            John, they said the same thing about Bill. They even said that GW would never win again. The worst nightmare is happening to the Rep party right now. You have the Reps and you have the Tea Party and they aren’t on the same page. They were furious that O’Donnell won in Delaware. Now she’s down 20 points and they are going to lose a seat that they thought they’d win.

            I’m a Rep and I can see it coming. They might take over the House and maybe the Senate and if there’s one group that gets worse polling numbers than the President, it’s Congress. Right now Obama is around 43% and Congress is at 21%. Just like 2 years ago, just like now, in 2 years people will still hate Congress and the Democrats will remind them that it is Rep majority, so they should support Obama. This happened in 1996, 2008 and 2010. And he will probably win because of the Rep majority in Congress. If you really want a Rep to win in 2012, you shouldn’t be pulling for a Rep majority this November.

          • We’ll see. Obama was elected for all the wrong reasons and there is serious buyer’s remorse.

          • howard says:

            Do tell….what are the wrong reasons?

          • howard says:

            I am interested to hear what the wrong reasons were for President Obama being elected. It seems like a pretty bold statement. I would like your list of wrong reasons.

            I can understand disagreeing with direction or policy. That’s fine. I just don’t get the demonizing (socialist, nazi, etc…) or the devaluing or de-legitimizing his presidency. The arrogance that only one philosophy is right drives me crazy. I find it funny that for someone to be so influenced by the founding fathers or well read on the Constitution doesn’t understand or respect that our heritage and the legacy of that document was well argued and came about through great compromise and differing philosophies.

          • He was elected by people who fell in love with his life story and his great speeches and the fact that he wasn’t a Republican and he got a lot of votes BECAUSE he is black. I can’t remember of the documentary…maybe another poster knows…that showed the ignorance of huge numbers of Obama voters based on ecit polling that was done. Obama and his followers found out that imagining him being president and giving speeches about it were a lot different from actually being president. He and his staff are obviously way over their heads.

      • Matt says:

        The bigger problem is the people who pay nothing. Everyone should pay something, no matter how little you earn.

    • Ken says:

      The simple fact is that tax cuts given to regular working people like me and, I’m assuming, you, don’t do a whole lot for the economy. To make an economic impact, you have to cut tax rates where it will put the most money back into the economy, and that’s with higher-income people who invest that money and create jobs.

      The democrats like to push this fantasy that rich people will just bank the additional money that they keep from tax cuts. That is a fallacy that goes against the entire history of human behavior. When people have more, they spend more. It’s always true.

      The Bush tax cuts have been in effect for nearly a decade. If you let them expire, then you are indeed raising taxes. And you could not pick a worse time to suddenly raise taxes.

      No matter if you want to play semantic games and define it as a tax increase or just letting old tax cuts expire, the end result is the same. Taxes will go up, a lot. With an economy that isn’t creating jobs, you couldn’t do a worse thing.

  10. Mason says:

    Reagan was without question – by far – the greatest president of at least the past 50 years. No one else is even close.

    Reagans policies and his character pulled this country out of massive economic recession and personal doldrums. Does no one remember getting gas based on your license plate number? fist fights in gas lines that stretched down the street, the depressed attitude of citizens over 52 american hostages being held in Iran for 444 days, double digit inflation, 15% mortgage interest.

    We grew into the most dominate economic force in world history over the past 35 years precisely BECAUSE of Ronald Reagan. Does that mean he was perfect – of course not. Does that mean that every decision he made was correct – of course not. But to truly understand his greatness, you have to fully understand where we came from.

    And as far as coattails. there had not been a republican majority in congress since Eisenhower when Reagan took office – he turned the republican party into a viable force again. For those that are not familiar with history – that means the dems controlled congress thru the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter presidency’s.

  11. Bobzilla says:

    In response to a post up the page: There’s no question that Baby Boomers are generally unprepared for retirement. Some of us have been irresponsible with our money. That’s a fact.
    But when Baby Boomers entered the workforce three, maybe four decades ago, there wasn’t much to bank. Baby Boomers have spent their entire working days playing “catch-up.”
    There were those who did general labor for $4 an hour, and not for the $75 or more an hour that GM workers now make. Teachers once started at $1,200 a year instead of today’s $30K starting wage. Star NFL quarterbacks once earned $200,000 a year, a far cry from the $10 million or more that’s paid today.
    When I was drafted into the army in 1970, I was paid $75 a MONTH. As an E-4 upon my discharge two years later, my monthy salary was $210… A MONTH. Think TODAY’s army would stand for those paltry wages?
    When Baby Boomers were in their 20s, there were no 401-Ks. Retirement plans were still in the planning stages and didn’t arrive on the scene until much later.
    I’m in the process of spending my kid’s inheritence. But so what? My parents, who right now are attending the Big Band concert in the sky, didn’t leave me a million bucks either.

    • Tim says:

      It’s called inflation. Wages need to keep up with prices. And no, auto workers don’t make $70 an hour. Not even close.

      • They were making that including benefits.

        • Tim says:

          Those benefits included retiree benefits which don’t benefit the current workers.

          • The union made it impossible for GM to make competitive cars.

          • Mike says:

            It wasn’t the union insisting on GM, Ford and Chrysler to base their lines on big bulky cars gas inefficient cars when people wanted fuel efficiency. PS Ford has the same union and for most of the last 50 years has had similar union conracts and didn’t need a DIME of bailout money. The failure is on GM’s management.

          • GM had workers reporting to rooms to sit all day for 60,000 a year. Of course it’s management’s fault for caving to the unions.

          • Mike says:

            That is relative pennies in the grand scheme. GM’s issue is old GM vs. new GM. Old GM didn’t want to fight with the union and promised the union legacy costs beyond the capability of new GM. Now new GM is stuck holding the bag. Classic Stage One Thinking as you would say.

          • Mason says:

            I got news for you Mike. Those big bulky cars are where everyone makes their money – including Toyota. There is very little profit in the small cars. The vast majority of R&D goes into trucks and SUV’s of all manufacturers and the technology gets passed on to cars. You are listening to too many talking points on that arguement. Yes, some people want fuel efficiency – but many want and need big vehicles – trucks, suv’s and mini vans.

            I will agree that management of GM, Chrysler and Ford (Ford was a hair away from being in the same boat) has screwed up over the many years, but not for the same reason you think. They allowed the unions to become too powerful over the years. The imports will not build cars in union plants. They go to the south (SC, Alabama, etc) and use non-union labor. Why don’t you big union guys boycott them?

            On average, Toyota builds a car for about $2000 less per vehicle. The number one cause of that is legacy cost of retired workers. Do you understand that assemblyline guys are retired in Florida making $100k per year at 50-55 years old.

            and as for the wall street guys making a billion. That’s a joke. is there a couple that have made a hundred million, maybe. Most of the fattest cats make about 10 million. a lot of money, but I have much less of a problem with a Harvard or MIT grad with a Masters too, that works his way up amongst some of the smartest people in the world – than with a guy that didnt fiinish high school and decided to work an assembly line. or better yet, an NBA player that makes $20 million in salary and another $10 million in endorsements simply because he is 6’10″.

            The CEO’s worked from the time they were in middle school to excel. They finally worked their way to the top after 30-40 years and have earned their place. I could only hope my children would have the drive to propel them to the top in the same way.

          • Mike says:

            Mitisubishi builds cars in America using UAW labor. And notice my above post. I specifically mentioned legacy costs. But that’s not the fault of the new workers of current GM management.

          • That doesn’t mean GM’s stupidity should be paid for with money confiscated from you and me.

          • Mike says:

            And it doesn’t mean that the UAW should be blamed at every turn either.

          • Mason says:

            You can’t compare Mitsu to the Big 3. they sell maybe 10% of the units. They have been on the verge of pulling out of the U.S. for about 2 years because they can’t make a go of it. I work with hundreds of car dealers on the east coast and almost all of my mitsu dealers have closed or handed in their franchise.

            As for your legacy cost comment – your post was not up when I wrote my comment.

            Remember that when GM management was caving to unions, they owned roughly 50% of the domestic market. They did not have the foresight to see it wouldnt last forever. They now have just over 20% of the market. It is not possible to pay for the number of retirees they used to have with half the market share. It is a crappy dilemma, but a dilemma none the less. I don’t believe we the taxpayer should be paying for it.

          • Ken says:

            Aren’t the UAW workers at Mitusbishi the ones at the former Chrysler facility in Normal, IL? That’s a plant that has produced cars for both companies, like the ’95-’99 Dodge Avenger and Mitsubishi Galant.

            Mitsubishi isn’t a good example of success. They’ve always struggled to make a profit with the car business in the US.

          • Ken says:

            Ford was a bit lucky.

            They were in dire straights in 2005-2006, so much so that they mortgaged everything, even the family name itself, to borrow billions of dollar to restructure the company.

            At this time, GM was thought by most in the industry to be well on the way to recovery, especially after the 2007 deal with the UAW which would have brought the Big 3 pretty much even with the Japanese in terms of labor costs. GM was thought to be in far better shape than Ford. GM didn’t do what Ford did because it was sitting on $30 billion in cash and believed that they had enough to survive any downturn that might occur before the benefits of the new contract kicked in.

            When there wasn’t a downturn but an near collapse of the economy in 2008, even the $30 billion that GM had wasn’t enough. They were bankrupt, and because the banks were in such poor shape, they couldn’t even borrow money. That’s when they needed the bailout.

            Strangely enough, the fact that Ford was in such poor shape and borrowed the money that they did before the collapse is actually the reason that they didn’t need a bailout in 2008-09.

          • Ken says:

            First of all, people wanted trucks and SUVs. That’s why nearly all manufacturers were building them. They were the most popular vehicles on the road.

            The worst thing that ever happened to GM and Ford was again, the government, specifically the CAFE policy. CAFE was supposed to be about fuel economy, but due to UAW lobbying it was implemented in such a way to protect union jobs. The law was implemented with a two-fleet rule to appease the UAW.

            CAFE’s disastrous effect is pretty simply and obvious to explain…

            CAFE’s two-fleet provision required that vehicles produced by a domestic manufacturer in the US must meet the required mpg average exclusive of vehicles produced by that same manufacturer outside of the US and then imported was the single most destructive thing to happen to Detroit.

            CAFE would have been fine if there was just one mpg average that all cars sold by a manufacturer had to meet, regardless of where they built the car.

            This caused Detroit to manufacture small cars in the US at a loss. All those millions of Escorts and Cavaliers made no money for Ford and GM, even though they sold great. To lose less money on each unit, they cut corners and produced these cars that, while reliable, fell short of cars from Honda or Toyota. The sensible thing for Detroit to have done, and that any business would have done, would have been to move small car production out of the US, but then they would not have met CAFE standards on their profitable larger cars. They had to keep making less competitive small cars domestically because of CAFE. Their small cars were less competitive because they were losing money on every one of them. When you’re losing money on every unit sold, you’re going to cut corners to try to minimize that loss. If they built small cars as good as the Japanese, they couldn’t bring them to market at a profitable and competitive price.

            The unions knew that the Detroit had to build small cars in the US regardless of the loss per car. They had to build them in the US to balance off the lower-mileage, higher-profit vehicles. Thus, CAFE destroyed the industry’s bargaining position with the UAW. I wouldn’t want to see the jobs shipped out of the country, but without CAFE, Detroit could credibly have threatened to close those factories. The unions could have either agreed to more reasonable wages at those factories, or lost the jobs.

            When you consider the importance of the automobile industry, CAFE may well have been the single biggest industrial disaster in US history.

            CAFE might have been a well-intentioned law, but it was perverted by special interests (the UAW). If it was about fuel economy, why was this provision put into the law??? They put in the multi-fleet rule to prevent the domestics from outsourcing, effectively cutting their legs out from under them in labor negotiations.

          • Come on Ken, don’t clutter this site up with logic, reason and facts.

          • Ken says:

            Cars are a big interest of mine, and the misconceptions about the domestic industry that so many Americans have just drive me up the wall.

            Management’s biggest mistake was caving to the unions, but it they don’t, they lose billions in strikes. CAFE, like I was talking about above in that long-winded thing above, totally cut the negotiating legs out from under the Big 3.

            The whole union concept is warped. Why should a line worker assembling high-price, high-profit trucks make the same wage as a worker building low-cost, low profit compact cars? It takes basically the same amount of labor hours to build each, but one product brings in far more money than the other. They should be paid what their labor is worth. If the small-car guys don’t like making less then the truck guys, move to where the big truck plants and try to get a job there. People at the offices in my own company outside of Pittsburgh make more than I do here. I don’t begrudge them that, I’m free to leave my job any time I want to look for more money.

            I’ll never get why the Big 3 workers don’t leave the UAW. Don’t they see that the import workers in the US make just as much money and work for strong companies? The UAW has tried to organize at Honda, Toyota, and other plants for decades and has always failed.

          • Mason says:

            Great posts Ken. I also get very frustrated when people repeat dem talking points about the auto industry and obviously don’t know what they are talking about.

  12. Ochotexto says:

    No auto worker makes 70 $ per hr. More Fox news drivel. And even if he did that’s better than some hedge fund. CEO making a billion a yr. And they do., a billion with a B. That would pay for 2,000 teachers the money they rob daily.
    I just don’t see how anyone could idolize a myth prez who sold weaponry to the enemy .
    Kenneth if you’re a working guy and want all the tax breaks going to the rich you’ll never get it. Trickle down is a farce and excuse for the wealthy to not pay their taxes., proven time and again.

    • Yeah. It’s another Fox News plot. They were making twelve bucks and hour. That’s why they couldn’t make a car that could compete with the Japanese.

    • Ken says:

      Ocho, it has been a fact of human nature since the beginning of time that the more people have, the more they spend. That’s why so-called trickle-down economic, i.e., supply-side economics, always works. Putting more money into the hands of people who create jobs is how you grow the economy.

      Rich people don’t horde money and keep any gains resulting from a tax cut. That’s not how they became rich.

  13. Scootermojo says:

    I just love how a marginal sportswriter from Pittsburgh fancies himself such an “authority” on politics, economics and government in general.

    • Sportscaster. Not sportswriter and “marginal” for 30 years is pretty good.

      • Scootermojo says:

        there are quite a few others who’ve had more decorated careers and are much more recognizable. you’ve earned a living at it so more power to you but 2 things are quite obvious: 1) you’re on the fringe of the sports news in this area; 2) ultimately, it’s pittsburgh, dude..hardly the center of the sports world.

        regardless, you’re pulling your usual defecting the subject at hand game…sportswriter…oh, sorry….SPORTSCASTER…but your political diatribe’s are supposedly gospel…uh, ok.

        • I just throw opinions out there for discussion. I never claimed they were gospel. I was working as a sports anchor in Pittsburgh when I was 30 years old. At the time, Pittsburgh was a top 10 market. There are literally thousands of guys who would kill to have the success I had in an incredibly competitive business.

        • Mason says:

          Wow, Scooter, why the personal attacks?

          First off, if you are insulting John’s career – I’m going to guess that you are still young in yours and do not understand how difficult it is to excel to the level he has.

          Second, you go on about how crazy us conservatives are and make personal attacks – don’t you think at the same time, we think the exact same thing about people with different beliefs. They are supposed to be discussions, debates, etc. It is very easy to see facts from two different viewpoints. The point is to have civil discussions about it. That is what adults do.

          You perpetuate the view of many, that liberals are narrow minded and juvenile. Much like the two women on The View that stormed off stage because they disagreed with the guest. Sadly, our president handles things the same way with his verbal assults that are far below they dignity of the office he holds.

          Please bring your comments up to street level.

    • Ken says:

      Kind of like how a community organizer from Chicago fancies himself the wisest man on earth.

    • colt says:

      Why does being a sports writer or sportscaster disqualify one from being an authority on other issues, including politics and economics? Many of those who ended up doing sports, were actually trained and well-versed in other areas. Do you think that Bob Costas (left of center though he is) only reads the sports page?! Keith Olberman (extreme lefty though he is) does a show about political stuff. If I recall, he was a sports guy. Do you remember Howard Cosale (sp.)? He was an attorney, and was very intelligent and well informed on the issues (extremely arrogant though he was).

      Therefore, Blasto, if you wish to attack John’s views, why not just do so. Why resort to that kind of personal attack?

    • The Truth Sleuth says:

      Can’t be knowledgable at more than topic, Scooter? Great call, weirdo. Do you know anyone who is good at more than one thing? I want you to think real hard about that, buddy, but don’t chew gum while you do it. Not everyone can do more than 1 thing at a time.

Leave a Reply