Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Two Wholly Different Outcomes

IBD ^ | 03/26/2014 | Vance Ginn

[SeekAndFind]

Despite adding almost a trillion dollars to our national debt and failing to keep the unemployment rate at or below 8% as advertised, liberals consider President Obama's signature stimulus package — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — a success, in part because of the number of jobs it "saved."

Beyond the obvious failings of the president's plan, now more than five years old, the approach is illustrative of how presidents sometimes try to stabilize an economy using fiscal policy.

But there is a right way and a wrong way. Sen. Ted Cruz recently remarked on two very different fiscal policy outcomes:

"Reaganomics means you start a business in your garage; Obamanomics means you move into your parent's garage." Obama's prescription for the last recession was to reinvigorate the economy by passing the ARRA and other policies over the next four years. These included ObamaCare to regulate the health care market, Dodd-Frank to regulate banks, Cash for Clunkers and extending unemployment benefits that collectively increased economic uncertainty and reduced incentives to hire and work.

The passage of these historically large spending measures, plus lower tax revenues from a sluggish economy, led to record federal budget deficits that exceeded $1 trillion in fiscal years 2009 to 2012 and have thus far added almost $6 trillion to our national debt after fiscal year 2013.

December 2013 marked the recovery's 54th month, but stories of individuals moving into their parents' garage are common because they can't find work or are underemployed. Obama's big-government policy prescriptions have left the labor market feeling sick.

The results are vastly different from the limited-government prescriptions offered by President Reagan in the 1980s.

[allendale]

When you borrow $6.5 trillion dollars and print trillions more, the frenzied spending and “economic activity” has no real foundation or means to generate ongoing wealth. In fact the capital that is necessary for the production of future wealth has been squandered.Obama and Bernacke have created an economic catastrophe.

[uncommonsense]

"In fact the capital that is necessary for the production of future wealth has been squandered. Obama and Bernacke have created an economic catastrophe."

But stocks are up and the banks love the free Fed cash! /sarc

Obama hates the trickle down economy when it's not from the Fed Gov.

[areukiddingme1]

I had the pleasure of actually explaining this to group of teenagers and this was the bottom line of the explanation;

Reaganomics = Steak and potatoes vs. Obamanomics = Cotton Candy

Which one can you live off of? Next question.

[Lou L]

in part because of the number of jobs it "saved."

And "saved" jobs can't possibly be measured. It's a purely hypothetical number, so as far as liberals are concerned, it could be anything.