A balanced government

[monicasilver]

While the debt game is being played, I still keep reading comparisons between Obama and Reagan. Personally I don’t really have an opinion. I tend to lean towards thinking Obama is a better president, but I also think it is way too soon to call. Frankly from what I read, people who are trying to make a case that Reagan or Obama is “better” are either misinformed or downright dishonest and biased in their analysis and what they are presenting.

It is tough to compare and I think the best time should be spent on seeing if we can learn anything about how Reagan handled the crisis he inherited instead of comparing them. Inflation was a major problem. GDP growth was/is a problem for both.

Also, the presidents are given too much credit and blame. The President proposes the budget, but The House defines the spending through the final word of the bill. Reagan never had control of The House. Neither did Bush (41). Clinton had it for only 2 years and Obama had just lost it after 2 years.

I have only seen a few say that the Democrat Congress or the Republican Congress raised the debt. An argument can be made that the best combination is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Obama’s numbers would not register as ideal and go figure that is under a Congress of the same party and it is too soon to call to see how he works with the Republican Congress, which will be an important indicator of his leadership ability.

Just my opinion, but I think the worse cases are when the same party controls the executive and legislative. Balance is a good thing.

 

[Legzman]

The president is a puppet. It's that cut and dry. The corporations that run this country make all the calls in regards to everything really. The president is just their fall guy.

 

[monicasilver]

The president is a puppet. It's that cut and dry. The corporations that run this country make all the calls in regards to everything really. The president is just their fall guy.

Tough to disprove. :surprise:

 

[Hot Mega]

While the debt game is being played, I still keep reading comparisons between Obama and Reagan. Personally I don’t really have an opinion. I tend to lean towards thinking Obama is a better president, but I also think it is way too soon to call. Frankly from what I read, people who are trying to make a case that Reagan or Obama is “better” are either misinformed or downright dishonest and biased in their analysis and what they are presenting.

It is tough to compare and I think the best time should be spent on seeing if we can learn anything about how Reagan handled the crisis he inherited instead of comparing them. Inflation was a major problem. GDP growth was/is a problem for both.

It's impossible to compare the presidency of any president who served a full term (4 or 8 years) to someone who hasn't. It is possible though to compare simple things like raw data/events, etc. at given stages of their presidency IMO. Not for the purpose of judging their performances per se but for circumstantial comparisons. Those who have opinions on how the data reflects on their performances will have their say.:dunno: That's politics.

I tend to agree with you regarding Obama being a better president and that's actually a bad thing believe it or not. I think Obama does believe he can manage all of the politics and policy and that is fairly his undoing at this point IMO. The greatest thing Reagan and GWB ever did for their presidency is hire minions extremely competent in the politics and they merely spoke the policy. That one of the reasons Obama's demeanor appears strikingly different from the seeming aloofness of Bush and to a lesser degree Reagan. The air about them was they weren't concerned about the politics. Some will say that reflects one way or the other on them as people. I would tend to disagree...

Reagan and GWB were the frontmen for well oiled (no pun), seasoned political machines. Obama is great frontman but he lacks the political machinery. If he had just 1/5 of the machinery GWB had...Obama's potential would be incalculably good. I think GWB's political machinery was the best I have ever personally seen or read about. It even dwarfed Reagan's IMO.

As far as how we should look at how Reagan (in this case) handled the circumstances he inherited, I'm not sure that would be particularly worthwhile. What can be gleaned practically from analyzing how Reagan handled circumstances he inherited when they were different. I think though it is worthwhile from the standpoint of realistic expectations to look at past circumstances with a view toward policy expectations. As you said, the only real constant is how slow the economy generally takes to turn.:2 cents:

Also, the presidents are given too much credit and blame. The President proposes the budget, but The House defines the spending through the final word of the bill. Reagan never had control of The House. Neither did Bush (41). Clinton had it for only 2 years and Obama had just lost it after 2 years.

That's just the way it is.

Of course Reagan 'never' had control of the House. He was the president and a little thing call separation of powers would have made that difficult for him. Do I know what you meant? I suppose I do but what fun would it be giving you that pass??:tongue:. I guess it is noteworthy that Reagan never enjoyed a Republican majority in the House during his two terms.

However, that seems less significant when for 6 of his 8 years the Senate was GOP. Hard to believe that the House directed the fiscal priorities over a GOP Senate and GOP Administration.:dunno:

 

[monicasilver]

It's impossible to compare the presidency of any president who served a full term (4 or 8 years) to someone who hasn't. It is possible though to compare simple things like raw data/events, etc. at given stages of their presidency IMO. Not for the purpose of judging their performances per se but for circumstantial comparisons. Those who have opinions on how the data reflects on their performances will have their say.:dunno: That's politics.

It is possible to compare anything. The question is, is there value to it? However, to restate what I believe, in making the comparison on a small subset of data is an error or dishonest. I have seen a couple of comparisons that were pretty comprehensive in their analysis of the total performance of the two presidents that I thought were pretty good. I haven't seen anything like that on this board. So, I think the old adage is true about using metrics; "liars figure and figures lie."

I tend to agree with you regarding Obama being a better president and that's actually a bad thing believe it or not. I think Obama does believe he can manage all of the politics and policy and that is fairly his undoing at this point IMO. The greatest thing Reagan and GWB ever did for their presidency is hire minions extremely competent in the politics and they merely spoke the policy. That one of the reasons Obama's demeanor appears strikingly different from the seeming aloofness of Bush and to a lesser degree Reagan. The air about them was they weren't concerned about the politics. Some will say that reflects one way or the other on them as people. I would tend to disagree...

Reagan and GWB were the frontmen for well oiled (no pun), seasoned political machines. Obama is great frontman but he lacks the political machinery. If he had just 1/5 of the machinery GWB had...Obama's potential would be incalculably good. I think GWB's political machinery was the best I have ever personally seen or read about. It even dwarfed Reagan's IMO.

Bush (43) probably had the largest (strongest?) political machinery backing. He didn't have the intelligence of Obama or the leadership ability of Reagan, so I believe he was rudderless with backing (feel free to read as "control") of The House for (I say this w/o checking) 6 years. Too much power to a guy without the right stuff.

Certainly Obama's first two years in office he the power of having the Presidency, Senate, and House all within his party. Reagan did not, and that is a huge point to also consider in those metrics of yours that you like. They could also be comparing a Democratic House to a Democratic House.

Who has the more power machine? I think your comments are biased. By approval polls, Obama has better support from Democrats than Reagan did Republicans at this point in his term. Also, look at the money that is flowing in for Obama. I don't think there is a good way of knowing that.

As far as how we should look at how Reagan (in this case) handled the circumstances he inherited, I'm not sure that would be particularly worthwhile. What can be gleaned practically from analyzing how Reagan handled circumstances he inherited when they were different. I think though it is worthwhile from the standpoint of realistic expectations to look at past circumstances with a view toward policy expectations. As you said, the only real constant is how slow the economy generally takes to turn.:2 cents:

The comparisons for the most part or politically motivated and the only value is in politics, not in taking real action. Look at what happened when the debt limit was raised - what was the outcome? Did Congress deliver of the promise when raising to debt limit to reduce spending and what was the outcome of that?

Of course Reagan 'never' had control of the House. He was the president and a little thing call separation of powers would have made that difficult for him. Do I know what you meant? I suppose I do but what fun would it be giving you that pass??:tongue:. I guess it is noteworthy that Reagan never enjoyed a Republican majority in the House during his two terms.

It is actually a major point, not just noteworthy.

However, that seems less significant when for 6 of his 8 years the Senate was GOP. Hard to believe that the House directed the fiscal priorities over a GOP Senate and GOP Administration.:dunno:

Actually the opposite is true. The Constitution identifies the legislative body that is most representative of the people to control the spending. The Senate doesn't get a say on any of this unless The House gives them something to talk about. It is the point of this posting - The House had a HUGE impact on Reagan's spending and revenue commitments. He did not get everything he wanted, but he worked with them. Bush (41) had to compromised with The House (very willingly from what I have read) and that lead to his demise. Clinton negotiated with them every step of the way. Bush (43) had an easier go since his party controlled The House for the majority of his term. Obama's first two years were with full support of The House and Senate and he was able to get thru huge legislation - I think that was a bad thing.

Rome's Republic was designed to ensure that there was conflict. They knew that government should not act too fast. That least to tyranny and calamity. Their approach was to keep the wheels moving, but move slow and methodically.

From what I see, it seems to work best fiscally when we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse adn Republicans controlling Congress.

 

[Trident1]

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133499514/what-obama-is-learning-from-reagans-example


Interesting. Obama looks to Reagan for inspiration. Yet so many liberals like our resident "Paul Begala" Meg keeps trying to say Obama is better. Funny. Meg's hero looks up to Reagan.

 

[monicasilver]

There is a whole thread of "WWRRD?" comments during the debt discussions that is just immature.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I think the point is here, if we are comparing Reagan to Obama, is that Obama is actually trying to run the country, whereas Reagan was happy to let others run it for him.

I'm not sure what is more noble and more sad: actually try to do the job you were elected to do, but fail; or not bother, abrogate all your responsibilities and do - well - ok (I know, there's a lot of Reagan revisionism, but it seems that a balance of opinion (and balanced) is that in hindsight, his presidency was actually not at all bad).


P.S. What's WWRRD?

 

[ragincaucasian]

what does OBAMA or REAGAN have to do with "a balanced government"?
Neither are either

 

[Hot Mega]

It is possible to compare anything. The question is, is there value to it? However, to restate what I believe, in making the comparison on a small subset of data is an error or dishonest. I have seen a couple of comparisons that were pretty comprehensive in their analysis of the total performance of the two presidents that I thought were pretty good. I haven't seen anything like that on this board. So, I think the old adage is true about using metrics; "liars figure and figures lie."

Is there a value to indicting a president on failure using those numbers at the 2.5 year point in his term? I would say no and that's most likely why Reagan wasn't indicted as a failure when his numbers were slightly worse than Obama's at the same point. But that isn't the point for those who engage in it.

Most SHOULD acknowledge failure at that point is practically not knowable considering the circumstances that were inherited. Since even you acknowledge economies don't turn on a dime..isn't it reasonable to look at some history for a perspective?? Like how long it took for the economy to turn the last time u/e was over 10 pct. Like I said and will continue to say until some GOPer shill takes down that ad, just going by the raw numbers..Obama's are ahead of Reagan's.:dunno:

Bush (43) probably had the largest (strongest?) political machinery backing. He didn't have the intelligence of Obama or the leadership ability of Reagan, so I believe he was rudderless with backing (feel free to read as "control") of The House for (I say this w/o checking) 6 years. Too much power to a guy without the right stuff.

Certainly Obama's first two years in office he the power of having the Presidency, Senate, and House all within his party. Reagan did not, and that is a huge point to also consider in those metrics of yours that you like. They could also be comparing a Democratic House to a Democratic House.

Who has the more power machine? I think your comments are biased. By approval polls, Obama has better support from Democrats than Reagan did Republicans at this point in his term. Also, look at the money that is flowing in for Obama. I don't think there is a good way of knowing that.

Well, the balance of power is only a huge point IF the opposition party to the WH is able to successfully stiff arm the administration's policies. What difference does party affiliation make if the president has the political capital to effect his will in spite of opposition?? That's is the definition of 'power'. :2 cents:

Conversely as you mentioned, Obama did enjoy (for lack of a better word) party control of both houses of congress but to what effect??? He wanted to close GiTMO and gave the exec. order...(which still stands today), yet his party control of congress couldn't/wouldn't effect the policy.:dunno: Obama wanted to do the fiscally responsible thing in letting expire the tax cuts on the top 2 pct...yet, we know what happened with that. Ergo, the shit-storm the Fed g'ment finds itself in today.

So again, party control is merely noteworthy until we can point to specific circumstances where it made a difference in the president's ability to effect his agenda.

More homework for you.:o

The comparisons for the most part or politically motivated and the only value is in politics, not in taking real action.

Duh... Uh, Monica You strike me as the type of person who loves a good Porter House steak but you believe the chef grows them in his kitchen. You seem totally divorced from the reality of what it takes to get the fine cut of beef to your plate. You want the steak seemingly without the process of slaughtering cattle and butchering it into the various cuts of beef.

You don't get policy unless you are ready, willing and able to win the politics on an issue.

That is the whole point of all this. You have theoretical perceptions of practical expectations but seem woefully naive to the mechanical reality.

When (for example) Obama is attacked on (what we shall hereafter refer to as) 'the numbers' it's not for the purpose of a practical analysis nor for the purpose of generating a solution beyond weakening Obama's stature among the target audience. So a response in kind reflecting 'the numbers' which were very similar under Reagan is correspondingly not done for practical analysis but for the purpose of making the critics of Obama's numbers then defend Reagan's under the premise they accept Reagan's presidency as a success.

It's really quite simple to understand. What do you think GOPers are intending to do every time it's offered that 43 lied us into war and they present as a defense a cut and paste of every erstwhile comment made by a Demo on Iraq?? Some of the statements are wildly out of context, were applicable at given times and not necessarily contemporary, etc. But it doesn't matter, the effect of it is to make 43's critics pause in their criticism and have those who may not know any better say, 'well, if they said this either they were lying too or Bush wasn't.... The politics of that is no longer a negative for 43 but at worse a stalemate on the issue minimizing 43's political capital damage.....for what purpose Monica?? Say it with me, so he can continue to have the capital to effect his agenda.

I think Obama has done very well on the economy as again, it wouldn't have surprise me if u/e had topped in the mid to upper teens without some of his policies. But that's my opinion.

Actually the opposite is true. The Constitution identifies the legislative body that is most representative of the people to control the spending. The Senate doesn't get a say on any of this unless The House gives them something to talk about. It is the point of this posting - The House had a HUGE impact on Reagan's spending and revenue commitments. He did not get everything he wanted, but he worked with them. Bush (41) had to compromised with The House (very willingly from what I have read) and that lead to his demise. Clinton negotiated with them every step of the way. Bush (43) had an easier go since his party controlled The House for the majority of his term. Obama's first two years were with full support of The House and Senate and he was able to get thru huge legislation - I think that was a bad thing.

Since you made the statement, what major policy did Reagan want but was unable to get (constitutionally, legally or even illegally) from the Demo controlled House?

Sorry, more homework.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

WWRRD?

He had a plan... but then he forgot it.

 

[Hot Mega]

WWRRD?

He had a plan... but then he forgot it.

Pretty irrelevant what Reagan would do since he inherited high interest rates, poor u/e, inflation and a WINO (war in name only).

Now unless Obama inherited high interest rates and excessive inflation to go a long with poor u/e....Obama inherited poor u/e, bankrupt financial sector (US and world), bankrupt auto industry, failing housing market and wars of direct conflict on two fronts.

Never mind that, the only thing Reagan did was pump money into the economy to turn it around...the same as Obama did...and it's turned faster for Obama...

Given a chance it will probably outperform Reagan's economy.

 

[ragincaucasian]

can you imagine what folks would say of Obama had they known he'd agreed to sell arms to Iran to fund an illegal war in Canada?

 

[Hot Mega]

can you imagine what folks would say of Obama had they known he'd agreed to sell arms to Iran to fund an illegal war in Canada?

I'm still stuck on what his opponents would be saying if u/e was over 10 pct. for 10 straight months in his first 2.5 years.:surprise:

 

[Trident1]

There is a whole thread of "WWRRD?" comments during the debt discussions that is just immature.

It's funny seeing the libs get their panties in a bunch over Reagan. Despite the Leftist "Thought Police" trying unsuccessfully to strip Reagan of his greatness Obama looks up to Reagan for inspiration on economic recovery and leadership.

 

[LukeEl]

A balanced government sure as hell isn't like a balanced breakfast these days.

 

[Straight Shooter]

It's funny seeing the libs get their panties in a bunch over Reagan. Despite the Leftist "Thought Police" trying unsuccessfully to strip Reagan of his greatness Obama looks up to Reagan for inspiration on economic recovery and leadership.

Obama looks up to Reagan the man not his policies. There's a difference.

 

[ragincaucasian]

to strip Reagan of his greatness

what was his 'greatness'?

 

[Trident1]

Obama looks up to Reagan the man not his policies. There's a difference.

Incorrect. He looked up to both.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Incorrect. He looked up to both.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044712-1,00.html