Obama’s approval jumps slightly; he’s still comparable to Reagan

The difference is, Reagan’s solution of tax cuts and cuts in government spending, the exact opposite of Obama’s “solution,” eventually resulted in eight years of unprecedented economic growth. When he ran for re-election two years later, it was indeed “Morning in America” and he won 49 states.

I don’t think Obama will be so lucky.

Uh, no. There is no difference, as this trendline represents numbers — data about Obama’s approval in his first 20 months, not his policies. What Reagan did in his 3rd to 8th year in office is irrelevant to this discussion, regardless of your routing for Obama’s — and America’s — failure, Dennis.

Do the research leftis. It’s incredible that Reagan maintained this level of approval during his first 2 year when the media complex worked very hard to tear him down. And continued to do so during his entire presidency.

It’s incredible that Obama’s ratings are this low as the media complex continues to work to prop him up. Carter II is going down in flames!

As a percentage of GDP:
Reagan drove up the debt by 49% in his first term, and by 40.2% in his second – largely because supply-side economics does the opposite of what republicans claim. Reagan and both Bushs drove the debt up dramatically, while Carter and Clinton both brought it down (as %/GDP) by being better at growing the GDP and using sound tax policy.

Reagan took a small trade deficit and made it deep and permanent. A situation even worse than the budget deficit.
He also began a period of time when people have at best a 4% chance of upward economic mobility. A period we are still in.

Obama would be looking pretty good if not for the emergency spending necessitated by conservative failure, republican obstruction, and the relentless right-wing propaganda.

Well Said Zera Lee

Reagan was disliked by both sides when he won the Presidency. The establishment right viewed him as an outsider (thank God) and liberals hated his less government and strong national defense views. The left was talking impeachment for his cuts in government spending which increased deficits to then unheard of levels. The biggest difference between Obama and Reagan is what each did to rectify economic their respective recessions. Reagan’s approach has been proven over and over again. Cut spending, reduce taxes, and cut government red tape. The deficits created by Reagan ultimately resulted in a surplus that his successor, Bill Clinton, and Democrats took credit for. Obama’s approach is unproven and from a historical perspective seems less likely to be successful. Anyone who has looked at the policies of FDR and the New Deal will see that government stimulus isn’t nearly as effective. The fact that this administration is using FDR’s policies as a roadmap is disheartening for the future of our economy over the next decade. Obama would be better off basing his policies on a Democrat who truly understood how to stimulate economic growth and that Democrat was JFK. JFK’s economic policies would get him run out of the Democratic Party today. JFK was a supporter and indeed practiced limited government in the matters of fiscal policy and was an ardent supporter of lowering taxes on businesses. So, for all you dough heads out there who think you know what you’re talking about because you watch 15 minutes of news on MSNBC get a clue. Original thought is a hard thing to come by in the current political realm.

My first post should have stated Reagan’s tax cuts not government spending caused the deficit to increase. An increase in deficits as a result of tax cuts can stimulate economic growth as long as spending is also reduced or at least not increased. This is why the Democrats approach ultimately fails because they believe in deficit spending. Spending without economic growth results in inflation and higher taxes in the long run.

Commenting on Obama and Raegen, what both candidates failed to realize is that the economy won’t grow if money doesn’t circulate. Obama wants to give more money for the government to spend/ waste. Raegen had the right idea, but by giving money straight to upperclassman, he assumed that all of them would invest that money and it would “trickle” through the lower classes. The best thing to do right now would be to give money to those who need it financially in the private sector for them to spend. They would either be forced to buy goods that helped businesses, or invest that money. either way, the effect is beneficial.