E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In the Sunday Washington Post, Dan Balz looked at the similarities and differences between Reagan’s first two years as president and Obama’s. “Both men succeeded unpopular presidents of the opposite party. Both offered big and bold plans… Both presidents were forced by events that preceded their elections to contend with economies in serious trouble. Both saw the unemployment rate rise sharply during their first two years in office -- under Reagan, the rate hit 10.8 percent by November 1982 -- and both saw their approval ratings decline as the numbers of jobless grew… Republicans suffered significant losses in the House in Reagan's first midterm election, giving Democrats an even larger majority. Most Democrats are braced for a similarly bad night this November.”
But: “The economy rebounded significantly during Reagan's third and fourth years in office. The unemployment rate declined, although not spectacularly. It was still at 8.3 percent in December 1983 and at 7.5 percent in August 1984 as the general election campaign was entering its final months… the contrary, the outlook for 2011 and 2012 is far more modest. The Congressional Budget Office said in its latest forecast last week that the pace of growth in the coming years "is likely to be slower than usual" compared with past recessions.”
The Sunday New York Times reported that the president "plans to make a high-profile speech on the drawdown next week, and aides are discussing whether to have him meet with returning troops. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indianapolis on Monday."
The Washington Post notes how Republicans are criticizing Obama’s 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. “One potential complication: Obama has spent far less time on vacation than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, had at this point in his presidency. Veteran CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, a fastidious keeper of presidential statistics, has kept count. By his tally, Obama has embarked on nine ‘vacations’ since taking office, bringing his total days off to 48. Some of those trips lasted a day and some, like his Christmas holiday in Hawaii, more than a week. By comparison, Bush had visited his ranch in Crawford, Tex., 14 times at this point in his administration and spent 115 days there. And yes, Democrats let him have it, too, complaining that he was a chronic vacationer.”
The Boston Globe: “Thus far, the vacationing president and his family have stayed mostly out of view, which political specialists say reflects a justifiable demand for privacy combined with White House concern about negative political fallout if the president is shown enjoying a privileged retreat during hard economic times.”
Leave a Comment:
Did anyone see the sign posted at Martha Vineyard enumerating the reasons the President desevese a vacation? He has haters, FYI, passed more legislation than many of of his predecessors.
Could never be. Balz overlooked one thing. The Bama is a socialist theologian . Reagan was a pillar of free market enterprise. If there are any similarities it ends right there. So you Bamaists don't go comparing apples to eggs. Stop it. Don't fool the public.
There are other differences too. For example, Regan gave amnesty to illegal aliens and Obama has not.
He hasn't given it yet.
A right wing obama hater says dont fool the public! Ahahahaahh! Thats rich. Hey JuvenBachan, next time u get an email that Obama doesnt know which hand to put over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, delete it or respond and say that email is a hoax. Do not giggle and forward it if you exhibit the character trait, integrity. Thx.
Did a conservative just refer to someone else as a "theologian?" That's interesting.
And you better go back and lok at Reagan's record on taxes. As governor and as president. You "free market" champions wil be surprised what you find...if you really look, of course.
Here is a little tidbit from HuffPo, Saint Ronnie my @$$ I lived survived that period.
Firstly, let’s keep politics out of this. Whatever your affiliation, Reagan just doesn’t deserve all that hype! He was always a popular President, but he has since been recast (mainly by conservative historians) as a great one as well. Yes, you can easily place him on that pedestal. You would merely need to ignore the Iran-Contra scandal, the huge budget deficits, his environment ignorance, his do-nothing reaction to the looming AIDS epidemic, his courting of Saddam Hussein, and numerous other blunders. “Reagan was truly a great president whose achievement rivals that of Franklin Roosevelt,” wrote conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, in his 1997 reappraisal where he credited Reagan for everything from the strong Clinton economy (go figure) to world peace (while somehow forgetting to mention Iran-Contra anywhere in the book).
But Reagan belongs in this slideshow for one thing in particular: his reputation as the man who ended the Cold War. D’Souza and others have suggested that Reagan’s arms build-up was a cunning ploy to bankrupt the USSR, which is a relief, because I always thought it was a cunning ploy to risk everyone’s life. Reagan showed little sign of burying the hatchet with the “evil empire” (as he called them) until the reformer Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet leader in 1985. Even then, he was very uncooperative in peace talks with Gorby until, facing scandal and low approval ratings, he was willing to do anything – even something crazy like helping to save the world. As for Russia’s bankruptcy… The war in Afghanistan started in 1979. Reagan was still in California.
Oh, and if you don’t think I can talk about US Presidents because I’m not American… then you’re a dope. Even Australians can do their research.
jomama you'll have to explain to the teabagging republicans what research is. They don't have a clue, they just make things up or repeat what they've been told.
Reagan was in a different era. A lot of the things he did was good for that era.
Mo:
It is apparent that your dumbazz never research anything either. You have never added anything to the conversation but condescending azz comments about people who do not agree with you. just because people do not see things through a liberal perspective does not make them dumb, stupid, ignorant or a racist. Your azz parrot Olbermann and Maddow..so who is the fool now?
Yes I say stuff too, but I do not attempt to piggyback EVERYTHING a liberal says unlike you. Do you have a job or do you milk the disabiity system with aching back you hurt at work.
kick rocks trick.........................
Kick rocks? You act as if you just got into a small altercation at the nightclub after the booty shaking contest.
I would call Mo's quip benign compared to the mindless regurgitation by obama haters on msnbc/newsvine.
Like i said, we arent at the club and saying azz instead of a$$ to show some sort of street cred is not required. Some heat fo yo azz. adidas 503 got some heat for yo azzzzzz. TRICK!
Adidas,
Who the Fkkkk was talking to you? You need to keep your nose to the grind and stop rolling up on grown folks. Didn't yo' mama teach you to respect your elders?
You apparently don't know the meaning of kick rocks so you need to keep your wanna' be black AZZ movin'
Ya Heard trick
lol if anyone sounds like a wannabe Black "Azz" it would be you.
Dont hate! Congratulate!
Mo, I'm hoping they learn it in Beckistan..lol.
Do you really think they'll learn anything in Beckistan? Besides beck has never done any research, all he does is claim to do research, and when everybody proves him wrong he never mentions it again.
One of the primary reasons why the economy began to rebound under Reagan in 1983/1984, continuing through the 1990's to the 2000s was that Reagan abandoned the failed Keynsian ideals, and began to embrace the ideals of FA Hayek and Milton Friedman. Regean also worked with the the Fed chair at the time, Volker, to begin the painful monetary tightening, coupled with broad supply-side tax cuts, thanks to Kemp/Roth. Reagan also moved power back to the states.
Obama is doing just the opposite ...
Anyone who was around in the 1970's knows those were truly tough times. The pain was more broad in the 1970'. No solace for those currenty out of work, and I say prayers for you.
So the point of this article is that thus far, the only simitarites between Reagan and Obama are that both were unpopular early in their Presidency. 'Aight.
You failed to mention Rob unintentional I'm sure (not) that Regan run up an all time high debt, and huge deficits. In other words Rob Regan spent his way out of the recession.
True, one area where Reagan failed was that he was unable to sufficiently cut government spending. Due in part to the O'Neil Congress.
Rob, if you actually knew anything about economics you would know that your assertion that Keynesian economics failed is not true, you would also know that Keynesian actions were not appropriate for the economic circumstances of the time. Keynesian economic methodology is what stopped the Great Depression and the same conditions then are what existed going into this current recession. According to conservative economist Bruce Bartlett (formerly a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation), the supply side economics that were appropriate during the beginning of the Reagan era were continued too long and went too far, just as the Keynesian policies went too far and were continued too long after WWII.
It is foolish and lacks intellectual honesty to hold that any one economic dogma is correct for all situations. Your statement that Keynesian economics failed and any statement that supply side economics failed (which I used to believe but have since changed my opinion on . . . see what reading can do?) is intellectually dishonest.
The policy applied must fit the situation at hand and the current situation at hand calls for Keynesian policies until the crisis has past. Once the crisis has passed, we must go back to non-crisis economic activities or we will find ourselves right back where we were in 1979.
Some state that our current crisis was not driven by lack of demand rather it was the result of a classic mis-allocation of assets. The extended period of historically low Fed interest rates created an atmosphere where money was "free" and the government got involved in the exhurburance and generated policies which encouraged unwarranted risk taking and other policies geared towards taking advantage of these low interest rates. Assets got mis-allocated as the pricing information the market was getting was incorrect due to the historically low Fed rate.
Excellent, Rob. And those same conditions existed just before the Great Depression. Yes, there were other factors that exascerbated those conditions but you have hit upon some of the main causes as outlined by economic historians.
Don't patronize me pal. Finally a decent debate here.
Here, take a read,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12061
I am not patronizing you, Rob. Your point was right on the mark . . . although it did disprove your assertion that Keynesian economics fails.
Seriously? The Cato institute? Come on, Rob. Check out Bruce Bartlett (conservative economist), Paul Krugman (liberal Pulitzer Prize winning economist), John and James Galbraith (father and son, father lived through and studied the Depression), etc. not a right wing echo chamber.
I read your link and it was exactly what I expected, a repeat of right wing, strict supply side economic dogma that got us in the trouble we are in. Yes, I saw who the author was and also who he worked for.
All right partner. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Echo chamber? How about this forum. Now this IS an echo chamber. And Cato is far from "right wing". Sure they support lazze-fair, yet they support gay marriage, disagree with Bush's Wars, support legalizing marijuana and disagree with the Arizona illegal alien law. Are those "right wing" positions? Cato is libertarian. They are more from the Objectivism, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Stuart Mill, FA Hayek school.
Further, Matt, I consider myself a classical liberal, as opposed to the modern version. Classical liberalism supports laizze-fair, and basically anything that strengthens man, as opposed to the state. Modern liberals have an undying love for the state. A Modern Day Robert Filmer if you will. To the modern liberal the state is "divine".
'Modern liberals' would disagree with you that they think ". . . the state is divine." That is a right wing myth that the other side is trying to tag the 'modern liberal' with. The 'modern liberal', as you call them, actually believe in a roll for government (true) but it is a limited role.
I consider libertarians a huge threat to the economic well being of the US, almost bigger than Republican ideas. Too little government and you get things like . . . oh, say 11 dead workers on an oil rig, more dead workers at an oil refinery in Texas City, 29(?) dead miners in West Virginia, 1/2 billion eggs with salmonella that has already killed around 40(?) people and sickened more than 1,000.
The only economist you listed said this: (from Wikipedia) Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".
Here is the whole paragraph from Wikipedia:
The libertarian economist Walter Block has observed critically that while The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it appears to include a lukewarm support for a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,[18]with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".[19]In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, and institutions for the flow of proper information. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism. Through analysis of this and many other of Hayek's works, Block asserts that: "in making the case against socialism, Hayek was led into making all sort of compromises with what otherwise appeared to be his own philosophical perspective—so much so, that if a system was erected on the basis of them, it would not differ too sharply from what this author explicitly opposed."[18]
Further, the article you pointed to was espousing supply-side economics and as a modern conservative economist (Bruce Bartlett) has indicated, supply side policies are not appropriate for the current economic situation and are what got us in this situation. Rather, Keynesian policies are more appropriate as long as they are not continued for too long (and he indicates it has not been too long, yet).
Finally and intelligent debate here on FR where I am challenged, vs. folks getting their shouts in before the admins close the forum.
True, we are a nation of laws. And true, Hayek does struggle with melding the state and a society where the nature of man is free. Yet, instead of rooting through a Wiki entry mining for information which supports your point of view, why don't you get the book and read for yourself? I have spoken with many modern liberals who upon reading 'Atlas Shrugged' were convinced that laizze-fair was the way to go.
The libertarian perspective is that we are a nation of laws, however, the role of government should provide for the protection of people and property, and that's it. And we do need a government to do that. However, we would prefer control to be at the level closest to the citizen. And many argue about what is the proper size of government to provide for that. A consensus tends to be anywhere between 12-17% of GDP being the optimal to provide for protection of people and property, and allow a private sector to thrive.
To more fully understand our form of government in the US, and our Founders, I would also recommend reading John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government". His First Treatise is a rebuttal of Filmer and is useless unless you've read Filmer previously, or have 'Patriarchia' at hand as reference.
We are reaching a point here on our little back and forth were compromise is required. There needs to be give and take on both sides, and be able to have a beer aftwards and tell dirty stories.
In a nutshell authors like Emmanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and John Locke wrestled with the ideas of man and nature, and a society which respects man.
Regards,
Cicero
Something I don't get is why they refer to weekend of not working as a vacation; it is not a vacation..... even when the president gets away for a weekend, he's on constant alert (sorta like, on call) and aware of everything happening in the country. He's still always planning a strategy of some sort and releasing press statements... so while they've been complaining that the president is on vacation, most people dont realize that they themselves take 52 (wks) x 2 (wkend days) = 110days of vacation per year; and that's if you don't take any other days off.
I just though that was sorta strange. Cheers everyone....
Lets see: Reagan raised taxes, did an arms deals with the russians, broke the law and gave amnesty.
Hey you Demoncrats, don't try to inflate that no good floppy eared, 12 month vacation spender and failure you call a president. He is the worst president in US history. Quayle's son was right.
I'm going with Franklin Pierce.
Juven,
If you are not actually 12 years old, you sure do act like it. Grow up, little boy.
The riechwing droolers are spot on again today, the train for Beckistan and your history lessons leaves at 3:30. Say goodnight dopes of nope GOBP in Nov.
Reagan was an opportunist. He knew, through intellegence sources, that the Soviet Empire was failing financially and would soon collapse. He went to Berlin and demanded that Gorby take down the wall. Of course the leader of the other world superpower said something like "Absolutely Mr. President, anything you wish is our command", didn't he? Anyone who believes that is very naive indeed. Gorby could have said up your nose Reagan and launch a nuke in Siberia just for emphasis.
It is strange how those who worship Ronny, the god, Reagan say those who support Obama think of him as a massiah. Hypocrisy has no end with the far right.
Presidents, some of them, work hard and deserve whatever time they can get off. Very few people in this country have anything near the responsibilities or are on call like the POTUS. Bush didn't do diddly but took off far more days off than Obama who has accomplished more in 2 years than Bush did in 8 but I don't fault Bush for taking days off. If he was out of the White House he wasn't as likely to get in trouble as he was while there.
As for Obama's rank among Presidents, he will be somewhere in the middle while George W. Bush is near the bottom. As time goes by Obama will likely go up while Bush will go down. Even Reagan and GHW Bush are higher on the ratings by CSPAN than GW Bush.
Adler, As a fiscal conservative I was no fan of GW Bush, but I have a hunch history will shine on him well. Generations from now will know GW for how he responded after 9/11. Many criticize him for being a cowboy, yet this nation needed a "cowboy" at that particular time. I believe this nation still, 9 years after, is still having a hard time getting our heads wrapped around what happened that fall day. We don't want to believe it.
There are other differences too. For example, Regan(R) gave amnesty to illegal aliens and Obama has not. Reagan(R) had to deal with a demo congress. 'Had to deal'.
Nomobama(A) has a demo full house, no repub.
Republicans suffered significant losses in the House in Reagan's first midterm election, giving Democrats an even larger majority. Most Democrats are braced for a similarly bad night this November.”
But: “The economy rebounded significantly during Reagan's third and fourth years in office. The unemployment rate declined, although not spectacularly. It was still at 8.3 percent in December 1983 and at 7.5 percent in August 1984 as the general election campaign was entering its final months…
O.K., do you see the bigger implications of this. The economy turned around under Reagan after Democrats gained the majority in Congress. This political climate is no different. Republicans today are offering the same policies, the same rhetoric, the same, the same, the same. Democratics are offering longterm solutions to our worst problems. No one is going to turn this around in a hurry.
And where is JoAnnaSmith1? Yesterday she admitted that she had no clue what Republicans would do if they regained majorty, but would vote for them anyway. I'm not surprised she's laying low.