Out of all the lies, the usurpation of laws and abuse of constitutional authority of this administration, one of the biggest disgraces is president Barack Hussein Obama recently comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. It's not the first time he's done it--having done so at various times throughout his wrecking ball of a presidency by using Reagan's name to beef up a speech or justify an action--generally an Executive one.
Back in the 80s, the Left hated Ronald Reagan--and they still do; nowadays it's morphed into a bizarre love/hate relationship. Fully aware of Reagan's place in American history, the Left, on occasion, will invoke his name depending on which way the wind is blowing for whatever scheme they're pushing. It's also telling that, despite numerous attempts from fallacious, far-left websites to denigrate Reagan's legacy (that he was voted the #1 greatest president in Gallup polls in 2001, 2005, 2011, and 2012 no doubt enraged them), the man's extraordinarily successful two-terms of office is clearly not lost on this overbearingly corrupt administration. He won two landslide victories--carrying 44 states in 1980, and winning an astonishing 49 of the 50 states in 1984. Upon his Oval Office exit in 1989, a CBS/New York Times poll showed Reagan held a 68% approval rating.
Regarding any comparison between them, the only sane way in which to compare the two is that both encountered recessions as they entered office; only the mess left by single term Jimmy Carter--with his double digit inflation and unemployment--was far worse than what Obama encountered. Additionally, both Reagan and Obama were transformative, yet in diametrically opposing ways. And that's where the comparisons end:
- Reagan limited the size of government to keep it out of people's lives while Obama is increasing it to control people's lives. Reaganomics provided the perfect example of a free market society at work while Obamanomics exemplifies a slave mentality with sweeping regulation and a government takeover of the healthcare industry. For the most part, Reagan actually did what he said he was going to do despite dealing with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives (they hold the purse strings) during his two terms. He reduced both taxes and government spending while Obama did the exact opposite. It's worth pointing out that Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress--both House and Senate--his first two years (they took control in Bush's last two years of his presidency), so there was no one to stop whatever nightmarish legislature he signed off on. Not that anyone has stopped him since two landslide mid-term elections that saw Republicans take the House in 2012, and full control of Congress in 2014.
- Under Reagan, Americans prospered from more money in their pockets via lower taxes and a robust supply and demand economy. Under Obama, Americans have not prospered at all with less money from his higher taxes and regulatory strangulation of the free market system. The 80s recovery boom saw, among other positives--a decrease in poverty levels, an increase in economic growth, and an 18% per capita increase in disposable income for working class families. Under Obama, poverty has increased to levels not seen since the Census Bureau began recording the numbers. Disposable income is down, and dropping with the devastating tax hikes wrought by Obamacare--recently ruled as Constitutional by a corrupt Supreme Court system; this despite the architect of the Healthcare disaster, Jonathan Gruber, blatantly stating numerous times what the bill really is, and that it only passed because of the stupidity of the American voter. The working class now has to use their extra cash for health insurance forced upon them or pay a fine that increases over time. Interestingly, it was said at that time that this massive downturn in the American economy was endemic and could not be reversed. It was. Flash forward to the Obama Years, and this lethargic growth is referred to as the new normal... and there's been no reversal in sight.
- Reagan was a fantastic speaker; quite possibly the most quotable president in history. An idealist and unifier, he could fire off quips with rapidity and back up his words with action. Obama is a good speaker as well (when there's an accessible teleprompter), yet his speeches--the ones disguised as optimistic--are some sort of code in that the exact opposite applies; except for when he's at his most comfortably divisive--like the time he stated his intention to regulate the coal industry out of business while wasting hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on failed green energy. Reagan spent eight years uplifting people with witty, soaring speeches with references to 'our' and 'we'. Obama has spent the duration of his presidency (along with his wife, Michelle) dividing the populace through social and racial barriers with numerous uses of the words 'I' and 'me'.
- Reagan's economic growth (over 16 million jobs created in eight years) vs. Obama's economic stagnation (over 45 million on food stamps and counting). Reagan encouraged Americans to be self-reliant while Obama goes out of his way to ensure as many people as possible are reliant on government entitlements. By stripping an individual of independent thought and purpose, they are easier to control. Reagan had Carter's much bigger mess cleaned up within three years, never once mentioning Carter in relation to the shape he put the country in. Meanwhile, Obama has yet to get the broom out of the closet to clean up a mess, that, by seven years into his 2nd term, is one of his own making. He spent the first several years of his presidency publicly blaming Bush for virtually everything. The Bush Blame Game has finally gotten old, yet the narcissism continues as the president publicly blames whoever is within reach. Common sense dictates that when you begin cleaning up after someone else, the result isn't the mess gets bigger.
- The American Left has always dominated the media and entertainment industries. That Reagan was able to strike the chord he did with the public in those pre-internet days is remarkable. CNN was founded in 1980, and along with the three major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), there was no Right-leaning outlet to voice opposition. Fox News Channel emerged in 1996, and, with the addition of talk radio, has managed to surpass (in terms of viewership) the decades long dominance of Democrat controlled media. Naturally, since they no longer have a monopoly on the news media, this has driven the Left insane in the ensuing years. Obama frequently blames Right Wing media for his failures when he's not blaming someone else. Instead of leading a country, Obama leads on the golf course with over 200 games wedged between the hardships of being in perpetual campaign mode for the entirety of his presidency. His repetitive, interchangeable speeches make it sound like he's just entering office for the first time. Reagan was able to accomplish much of his agenda by being able to work with both Left and Right while Obama has this petulant 'my way or the highway' mentality; and what he can't get passed he just whips out that pen for some Executive satisfaction.
- Reagan promoted individualism--making one's own way, if you so desired, through hard work and perseverance. As Reagan, formerly a Democrat, stated in October of 1964, "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'". Furthermore, in 1988, Reagan would say, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives". Obama, on the other hand, pushes collectivism--jettisoning individual liberty in favor of governmental control--that an individual's success isn't by their own volition nor their self-reliance. In contrast to Reagan, Obama said in 2012, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business--you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." The great teacher, the references to a 'somebody', is government. Yet it is WE who invested. It is our tax dollars--the working class--who entrust these politicians on the state and federal level to do the job they are voted in to do.
- Reagan emboldened America's place in the world with a strong military presence by way of 'Peace Through Strength'. Reagan used the phrase in 1980 during his presidential bid (and eventual landslide victory) against then president Jimmy Carter--espousing that weakness invites aggression against America and its allies. In light of current events, this certainly holds true; and to deny it is a clear, blind devotion to ideology. Obama's recycling of Carter's weak attributes resulted in, among other things: Vladimir Putin's takeover of Crimea, Iran set to obtain nuclear weapons, and the creation of ISIS. You don't stop a bully from taking your lunch money by giving it to him--you stop a bully by standing up to him.
To further codify the so-called comparison between these two presidents, Reagan's statement that "governments don't produce economic growth, people do", is yet another striking dichotomy to Barack Hussein Obama's strident affirmation that government is the answer to all your problems--when in fact, it is the SOURCE of all your problems; the catastrophe that is Obamacare being the elephant in the room--or in this case, the jackass in the room. Another major, oft-repeated problem of this bloated government is job growth, or, more specifically, a lack thereof.
Just last week, the Left and the mainstream media have been hyping a 5.3 unemployment rate, yet those who have given up looking for work are still not counted.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Participation has reached a 38 year low at 62.6 percent--a level not seen since 1977, during Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency--the former president whom Obama should be comparing himself to. Interestingly, you could take any number of magazine articles from that time (I have some of them), republish them, and nobody would know the difference.
Moreover, the civilian labor force declined by 432,000 in June, so this cancels out the 223,000 jobs that were allegedly created last month. How do you consider losing twice as much as you gain an accomplishment worthy of celebration?
No doubt a few weeks from now these "job creation" numbers being touted will be revised down like those of previous months.
Unless you're a Socialist, a Communist, an anarchist, or radical revolutionary, there is nothing "progressive" about 90+ million Americans out of work, an unsustainable, near 20 TRILLION DEBT--half of which this president has amassed all by himself--and an outsized government that thinks it can run your life better than you can.
"...Man is not free unless government is limited. There is a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." -- Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11th, 1989
Out of all of Reagan's pertinent, timely quotes, this one above certainly rings true today.
Reagan's presidency obviously wasn't perfect. But there's no denying the positive effects his two terms had for 10+ years after he was out of the White House. There is no comparison between Ronald Reagan and Barack Hussein Obama.There is no comparison between Limited Government and Big Government. Conservatives want their economic prosperity returned. Liberals want to tax and spend while applauding government imposed regulations. And with the continued damaged being done by, thus far, seven years worth of out of control taxing, spending, and regulating, it should be glaringly obvious by now that more government is not the answer.