Ronald Reagan is better than Obama

• Devils Advocate

  

  At creating new taxes.....
  
  
  
  
  
  This is obviously a failed Presidency....
• FatHobbit

  

  No new taxes tho right?
  
  [video=youtube;cJ5fOsyj-bk][/video]
• I Wear Pants

  Yes because your experience as a high school gym teacher makes you better at budget predictions and cost estimates than the people at the CBO or other analyst firms. :rolleyes:
• I Wear Pants

  ccrunner609;1217478 wrote:Fuck you...what I do for a living has nothing to do with my overall intelligence. I am very aware of the stickershock of most government ran programs. It is common knowledge amongst people that are half way intelligent that government programs ALWAYS exceed their initial cost...and not by a little but usually double or triple.

  I mentioned nothing about your intelligence but only your profession. Unless you have a reason like "well see the way they calculated x is wrong because of blah blah" then you didn't actually say anything but pure unreasoned speculation.
  
  Really wasn't attacking your intelligence but rather the way you went about this.
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants;1217475 wrote:Yes because your experience as a high school gym teacher makes you better at budget predictions and cost estimates than the people at the CBO or other analyst firms. :rolleyes:

  If you had to bet, would you take the over or under that Obamacare would cost twice as much add projected?
  
  At the very least, cc has a good point that they are comparing actual costs to projected costs.
• I Wear Pants

  FatHobbit;1217496 wrote:If you had to bet, would you take the over or under that Obamacare would cost twice as much add projected?
  
  At the very least, cc has a good point that they are comparing actual costs to projected costs.

  It's hard to figure because it's currently projected to save money. Yes there is a cost but it's offset by savings in other areas. Which is where that who "the cost has almost doubled" thing came from a few months ago, they hadn't but the ten year projection had merely been updated to the current year/range which included more years of the full effect (post-2014) but the conclusion was still the same that it would save money.
  
  Now you can dispute that if you want and that's fine but do it in a different way than "projections are always low". Explain why you believe or link to articles or studies that show how and why the projection is incorrect/inaccurate or likely to be on the low end.
  
  I don't know whether the projection is likely to be correct nor do I know whether it is likely to be double or triple as you two are so sure.
• O-Trap

  

  ccrunner609;1217478 wrote:... government ran ...

  "government-run"
  
  In all seriousness, it's too early to see HOW MUCH this will cost. But I'm honestly not optimistic, given the burden already on the American people.
• Al Bundy

  I Wear Pants;1217475 wrote:Yes because your experience as a high school gym teacher makes you better at budget predictions and cost estimates than the people at the CBO or other analyst firms. :rolleyes:

  A high school gym teacher would know a lot about government waste.
• said_aouita

  

  Al Bundy;1217542 wrote:A high school gym teacher would know a lot about government waste.

  So would an UAW employee and even people in the financial/mortgage business.
• Con_Alma

  I would like to see that graph in dollars as opposed to percentage of gdp.
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants;1217505 wrote:I don't know whether the projection is likely to be correct nor do I know whether it is likely to be double or triple as you two are so sure.

  I am not sure of anything, but it is still interesting that they are comparing actual numbers to a projection IMHO.
• jmog

  Too late...already doubled and it hasn't been fully implemented yet...
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1217623 wrote:Too late...already doubled and it hasn't been fully implemented yet...
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

  When a mechanic looks at your car and gives you an estimate (to which you agree), and then charges you almost twice as much, you call him a crook.
• ohiobucks1

  

  O-Trap;1217699 wrote:When a mechanic looks at your car and gives you an estimate (to which you agree), and then charges you almost twice as much, you call him a crook.

  well said
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1217699 wrote:When a mechanic looks at your car and gives you an estimate (to which you agree), and then charges you almost twice as much, you call him a crook.

  Well said.
• QuakerOats

  Deficit spending should be a felony offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for every elected official, agency and cabinet head. Period.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1217730 wrote:Deficit spending should be a felony offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for every elected official, agency and cabinet head. Period.

  Eh, I'd prefer it this way:
  
  For every dollar that the official/agency/cabinet head spends at a deficit, THEY are SOLELY responsible for paying for it. If Congress passes a piece of legislation that isn't balanced, those individuals are responsible to make up the loss (even after they leave office).
• jhay78

  

  LOL at that chart not showing Reagan's massive tax cuts, which taken together with all the tax increases leaves his 8-year presidency as a net tax cutter. That's like Obama claiming he slowed the rate of spending more than any president the past 40 years, or something like that, when he conveniently omits year 1 when spending exploded.
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/
  

  [LEFT]The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
  Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.
  
  So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.
  
  (Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)
  
  Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011&#8230
  
  
  [LEFT]Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”
  [/LEFT]
  
  [/LEFT]

• georgemc80

  QuakerOats;1217730 wrote:Deficit spending should be a felony offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment, for every elected official, agency and cabinet head. Period.

  That is the backbone of Keynesian Economics.....which is the underlying principle of the 2nd New Deal and Reaganomics.
• stlouiedipalma

  Interesting thread, if only to point out that Reagan wouldn't pass muster in today's extremist, Tea Party-fueled Republican Party. Had the Tea Party been around back then he would have been a one-term President.
• jhay78

  

  stlouiedipalma;1220105 wrote:Interesting thread, if only to point out that Reagan wouldn't pass muster in today's extremist, Tea Party-fueled Republican Party. Had the Tea Party been around back then he would have been a one-term President.

  Myth. The Tea Party exists because there are no more Reagans, or at least not enough of them.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1220105 wrote:Interesting thread, if only to point out that Reagan wouldn't pass muster in today's extremist, Tea Party-fueled Republican Party. Had the Tea Party been around back then he would have been a one-term President.

  Sigh. You people. :rolleyes:
• Classyposter58

  

  jhay78;1220165 wrote:Myth. The Tea Party exists because there are no more Reagans, or at least not enough of them.

  This. There is no true leader unfortunately, I think the fact that Mitt has dominated the Republican nod for the last two years and was a former CEO and governor makes me much more confident in his skills as a possible president than this current guy
• BoatShoes

  Classyposter58;1220218 wrote:This. There is no true leader unfortunately, I think the fact that Mitt has dominated the Republican nod for the last two years and was a former CEO and governor makes me much more confident in his skills as a possible president than this current guy

  Totally irrelevant. Herbert Hoover was a great businessman too. Macroeconomic policy is nothing like running a business. David cameron is a Romney clone and doing the same things he would do and england is worse off.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1217769 wrote:LOL at that chart not showing Reagan's massive tax cuts, which taken together with all the tax increases leaves his 8-year presidency as a net tax cutter. That's like Obama claiming he slowed the rate of spending more than any president the past 40 years, or something like that, when he conveniently omits year 1 when spending exploded.
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

  No praise for Obama being a net tax cutter with his billions of dollars in tax cuts in the stimulus and tax cut extensions?