Obama Rhetoric vs. The Facts – Once more Obama loses, when confronted with hard data
It never ceases to amaze me the crap that Obama spews as fact, and his loyal followers accept as gospel. For instance, on Tuesday April 10th, he told a group of students at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton, Fla. “Some people who are running for a certain office right now – who shall not be named – they’re doubling down on these old broken-down theories,” he was referring to what he and other liberals call “trickle down economics”. As I’ve pointed out before, one of Obama’s mentors, Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” said “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. This is one reason you often see the left making belittling statements about that which they disagree. The other and I believe most prevalent, is that many lack the intelligence to put forth a reasoned argument so they resort to ridicule or avoidance of the subject entirely.
The problem with their ridicule of supply side economics, the real name of this economic policy, is that it is all a lie. While Obama claims it’s a “broken-down” theory, history proves otherwise. When compared to the Ford-Carter years of 1974-1981 and the Bush-Clinton years of 1989-1995, the Reagan years of supply side fare much better. Here are some numbers to consider from a CATO Institute Policy Study from 1996.
- Economic growth during the Reagan years averaged 3.2%, while only 2.8% before and 2.1% after.
- Inflation, Interest rates and unemployment fell faster during the Reagan years, than before or after his presidency.
- The median family income rose $4,000 during the Reagan years, after experiencing no growth before, and a nearly $1,500 decline afterwards.
- By the end of the Reagan presidency the economy was nearly one-third larger than when it started.
- The claim that “The rich got richer, while the poor got poorer” is another huge liberal lie. By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans making over $50,000 per year than in 1981, yet there were only 2.5 million more Americans making in excess of $75,000 per year. Further the number of those making less than $10,000 fell by 3.4 million.
It seems pretty clear from just these few facts that supply side works and lowering the tax burden stimulates the economy better than the stifling effects of the reverse. The only period from the 1950’s to the time of the study that did better than the Reagan supply side years was the latter half of the 1960’s. The Kennedy income tax cuts of 30% that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5% annual growth. Basically supply side before it had a name.
So does Obama’s claim that supply side is a broken down theory hold water? Hardly, the broken down theory is that you can tax yourself to prosperity, or build up the poor by tearing down the rich. What Obama fails to understand, or purposely avoids because it’s not consistent with his agenda, is that it is the rich who create the jobs, not government. It is the rich who run businesses that drive the economy and produce the goods that people consume. The government doesn’t create anything but deficits, draconian regulations that hinder business and job growth, power-hungry elites and an ever-growing contingent of lazy welfare bums who feed off the productivity of others.
UPDATE: for more proof watch this