Obama and the democratic Congress are doing exactly what Carter and the dems did in the 1970's. Spend us into oblivion.

He's lost his luster and the reason is he is not the same guy on the campaign trail that he is now in the White House. Obama is finding out the hard way that it's a lot easier to spout off crap on the trail then it is when you're sitting in the big chair.

EVEN WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!

Reagan spent far, far more than Carter did.

Yeah, and what results did Carter have?

1) Reagan ended the cold war.

2) The misery index dropped like a rock.

3) The U.S. was the leader of democracy in the world.

4) And last, but not least, Reagan once again gave us a sense of pride as americans.

The last democrat to do that was Kennedy. ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO!

EvenSteven:

1) Reagan ended the cold war.

LeRoy: Gorbachev ended the Cold War. The Soviet Union was already on the brink of collapse in 1980, when Reagan won election. CIA reports at that time indicated just how dysfunctional the Soviet economy was. The Reagan administration deliberately kept those reports from reaching Congress, fearing that Congress might not approve the big defense buildup. [Why spend so much on defense if the U.S.S.R. is already in the process of falling apart?]

2) The misery index dropped like a rock.

LeRoy: Yes, and the majority of the credit should go to Paul Volcker, not to Reagan. It was Volcker's monetary policies that ended the inflationary spiral of the 1970s. It was certainly NOT Reagan's fiscal policies which, taken by themselves, would have worsened inflation, not bettered it. Really, you ought to try taking an Econ 101 class sometime.

3) The U.S. was the leader of democracy in the world.

LeRoy: Sure, except that Reagan supported dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Phillipines and Mobutu in Zaire, as well as a host of petty tyrants in Central and South America. I guess that all made us a 'leader of democracy'. Right. Tyrants were A-OK with Reagan, just so long as they were right-wing tyrants, like Pinochet in Chile.

4) And last, but not least, Reagan once again gave us a sense of pride as americans.

LeRoy: Reagan doubled our national debt. Perhaps you are proud of that. I am, by the way, not totally anti-Reagan. The man did restore a sense of entrepreneurialism to the American economy, which undoubtedly helped bring about the economic recovery of the 1980s, such as it was. [It was just not the key factor, which was ending the high inflation of the 1970s.] But the truth is that America is a dying empire, and Reagan, all in all, accelerated the process of decline, though not to nearly the same degree that George W. Bush did.

2) The misery index dropped like a rock.

LeRoy: Yes, and the majority of the credit should go to Paul Volcker, not to Reagan. It was Volcker's monetary policies that ended the inflationary spiral of the 1970s. It was certainly NOT Reagan's fiscal policies which, taken by themselves, would have worsened inflation, not bettered it. Really, you ought to try taking an Econ 101 class sometime.

OK, so if Volcker gets the credit then Obama shouldn't if the economy turns around? Bernanke should?

LeRoy: Sure, except that Reagan supported dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Phillipines and Mobutu in Zaire, as well as a host of petty tyrants in Central and South America. I guess that all made us a 'leader of democracy'. Right. Tyrants were A-OK with Reagan, just so long as they were right-wing tyrants, like Pinochet in Chile.

Uh huh, and what has Obama done about Hugo, Mahmood, and Kim Jong? NOTHING!

LeRoy: Reagan doubled our national debt. Perhaps you are proud of that. I am, by the way, not totally anti-Reagan. The man did restore a sense of entrepreneurialism to the American economy, which undoubtedly helped bring about the economic recovery of the 1980s, such as it was. [It was just not the key factor, which was ending the high inflation of the 1970s.] But the truth is that America is a dying empire, and Reagan, all in all, accelerated the process of decline, though not to nearly the same degree that George W. Bush did.

Yeah, and we're now on pace to put another 10 trillion on the scoreboard thanks to Obama, Ried, and Pelosi!

Reagan tripled, not doubled, the national debt. It was about $900 billion when Carter left office and grew to $3 trillion when Reagan left office eight years later. This was because Reagan ran $200 billion deficits consistently--despite promising to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term.

I am no fan of Obama's deficits, but his projected $9 trillion deficits over the next 10 years wouldn't even double the national debt. Reagan, as usual, took the cake. But to Cons he could do no wrong.

Last time I checked 9 trillion was more than 3 trillion.

Then again, you and Reid must have had the same professor in college. He can't figure out the cost of his healthcare bill either.

Current national debt = $11 trillion + Obama's deficits of $9 trillion = $20 trillion in national debt. $20 trillion divided by $11 trillion isn't even double. Yet Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years. Proportionally that is greater.

It's still 6 TRILLION dollars more than Reagan.

Man, you must be drinking so much of Obama's Kool-Aid that it's dimmed your common sense.

Better check with your junior high school math teacher. An increase from $900 billion to $3 trillion is a much larger proportional increase than one from $11 trillion to $20 trillion.

If you don't 'get' that, you just flunked pre-algebra.

I am talking about raw numbers.

You morons just can't stand the fact that the Congress and Obama are on pace to spend 3 times the money that Reagan did.

That's the bottom line!

BTW, I also remind you that the democrats had control of Congress during the Reagan years. And I suggest you go back and study Civics 101 in high school and remember that the president PROPOSES the budgets, but, CONGRESS APPROVES them,

EvenSteven: You morons just can't stand the fact that the Congress and Obama are on pace to spend 3 times the money that Reagan did.

LeRoy: Let's check a few numbers, shall we? The current population of the United States is over 305 million. In Reagan's time, the U.S. population grew from about 227 million (in early 1981) to about 245 million (in early 1989). Thus, the U.S. population was about 34% greater at the time of Obama's inauguration than at the time of Reagan's inaguration. Other things being equal, you would expect the government to be spending ~34% more today, just to account for the growth of population. In fact, you would expect a larger increase than that, as we have a higher proportion of elderly people today than we did in Reagan's time, meaning that the costs of Medicare and Social Security have risen dramatically. Finally, your comparison totally ignores the effects of inflation over the past thirty years. Today, the Consumer Price Index is at about 216; in early 1981, it stood at ~83 (and in early 1989, it was at ~121). This means that the general price level has almost tripled since the time when Reagan first took over. [And many people would argue that the CPI has understated inflation over the past thirty years.]

Add together the population growth, the much larger numbers of elderly people, and the effects of inflation, and the increase in spending is pretty much in line with what any reasonable person would have expected.

EvenSteven: I also remind you that the democrats had control of Congress during the Reagan years. And I suggest you go back and study Civics 101 in high school and remember that the president PROPOSES the budgets, but, CONGRESS APPROVES them,

LeRoy: Learn some history---especially some economic history. The budgets proposed by Reagan had larger budget deficits than the budgets ultimately approved by Congress, in EACH of the eight years that Reagan was in office. The man had eight chances to submit a balanced budget, and never even came close to doing so. Balancing the budget was simply not important to Reagan----even though one of his major campaign promises was to 'balance the budget'.

So it's OK with you that Obama and Congress are going to have TRILLION dollar deficits for the next nine years, YOU FOOL!

My point is this, and even for the simple minded such as yourself should understand, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama and thier respective Congress' need to balanvce there own budgets.

Just like you and I do every fucking month!

Clinton and the republican Congress did it in the 1990's, so it can be done. We simply do not have the money right now to go off a spend an extra nine trillion when we don't have it.

The dollar's value is in the toilet right now and you know it. So what's our solution? Just print more and spend more.

Sound fiscal policy. NOT!!!!!!!

Hard to argue with the likes of Evensteven, for he constantly changes the goalposts. As soon as you establish that Carter wasn't much of a spender and that Reagan was in fact the big spender, he counters that Reagan won the Cold War and gave Americans a sense of pride...and that Obama's deficits are worse. As soon as we establish that Reagan tripled the national debt while Obama isn't even expected to double it, he goes off about money printing (which is a separate matter caused by the Federal Reserve) and how the lot of 'em--Reagan, Bush, Obama--were no good.

Red herrings and straw men are his arguments. Point is, Reagan tripled the national debt while Carter made it go up about 25%. Republicans gave Carter a lot of grief when his deficits approached $50 billion, but thought Reagan's $200 deficits were OK because he was 'winning the cold war' or beating up on two-bit countries like Nicaragua and Grenada...or getting the economy moving again. Reagan could do no wrong even though every one of his eight years had $200 billion deficits. Hard to beat this double standard.

The national debt was $900billion when Carter turned the checkbook over to Reagan. Reagan borrowed $2 trillion in 8 years. In fact, Carter resisted deficit spending to turn the economy around. In the years since 1981 the republicans held the White House for 20 years and ran up a debt of $9 trillion bucks.

It is nuts for you to claim that Carter's spending was a problem. Carter inherited an economy in the tank from Ford. (Remember "WIN" buttons?) The fact is that he didn't turn it around. The Reagan economy continued to head down the toilet until August of 1983 when unemployment finally hit bottom.

Just thought you'd like a little trip down memory lane.