Obama didn't crush the Reagan link, Bin Laden and Bush 2 did with the help of 9-11. So, I think it is disingenuous to hint at that. Reagan crushed the middle Class in the U.S. by Union busting. So, since the middle class is the engine of a successful democracy, one could say that Reagan ended our successful democracy and Bill Clinton didn't help too much with this either. But then, the overreaction financially in a military and security sense to 9-11 was a death blow to the Western world economies. Only by the Grace of God did we not drop into another Great Depression 5 or 10 times worse than the one during the 1930s. We are very lucky indeed to have any western economies working at all right now.
Begin quote:
Obama is crushing the Reagan link—and Putin knows it
CNBC.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Across his remarkably successful presidency, Ronald Reagan
repeatedly made the link between the U.S. economy and U.S.
international security and defense. He consistently argued that weakness
at home leads to weakness abroad.
Jewel Samad | AFP | Getty Images
U.S. President Barack Obama, right, listens to
Russian President Vladimir Putin after their bilateral meeting in Los
Cabos, Mexico.
Reagan was aiming at the dismal Carter years. But he
understood for all times that economic strength at home sends a powerful
signal for international security overseas.
When Reagan went to Reykjavik to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev, he believed the resurgent American economy would hammer the nails on the coffin of Soviet communism. And he explained to Gorbachev that if the Soviets didn't come to the negotiating table with nuclear weapons, the U.S. would out-produce them on nukes and with technological superiority. Similarly, Reagan would not give up his vision for strategic missile defense.
When Reagan went to Reykjavik to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev, he believed the resurgent American economy would hammer the nails on the coffin of Soviet communism. And he explained to Gorbachev that if the Soviets didn't come to the negotiating table with nuclear weapons, the U.S. would out-produce them on nukes and with technological superiority. Similarly, Reagan would not give up his vision for strategic missile defense.
And in both cases — building nukes and SDI — Reagan knew
the American economy had the resources capable of achieving these goals,
while the sinking Soviet economy couldn't match us.
In the end, the Soviet system imploded in one of the greatest reversals in world history. Freedom won. Communism lost.
Now, circumstances are somewhat different today. But the horrible Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine highlights some worrisome facts about American-Russian relations. Mitt Romney was right. Russia is our biggest threat.
Read MorePutin bears responsibility for Malaysian plane attack: ex-WH adviser
We know that the Malaysian plane was brought down by a ground-to-air missile fired from Russian-made SA-11 weapons run by pro-Russian Ukranian rebel terrorists. We also know that Russia is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. in Ukraine, and that Russian special forces are leading the terrorist movement in Ukraine. We can add to this the proxy war fought by Russia in the Middle East, with its main ally Iran, and the fact that Russia is engaging in state-sponsored terrorism.
Whether President Obama understands all this, I don't know. His policies have been alternatively passive (Libya, Egypt), incoherent (Russian reset), and feckless (Syria). But the fact that the current U.S. economic recovery is the slowest in post-WWII history — spanning 70 years — is surely a key factor in Vladimir Putin's adventurism.
This brings us back to Reagan's link. Putin may recognize that Russia's economy is a thin deck of cards. But he surely doesn't fear the weak American economic position. Ditto for the broken economic dictatorships in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and the rising economic dictatorship in China. They don't fear us.
Read More Merkel talks tough, but can Europe back it up?
In fact, America's economic weakness is so worrying, one suspects our friends are losing respect for us too. Whether in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Israel, our allies know that America has been the backstop for freedom. If not us, who?
But can they say that now?
As I testified this week before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, at 2.1 percent average real growth, the U.S. is lagging far behind the 4.1 percent average recovery pace of the post-war business cycles. The Reagan recovery averaged 5 percent annual growth at the same point as the Obama recovery.
In the end, the Soviet system imploded in one of the greatest reversals in world history. Freedom won. Communism lost.
Now, circumstances are somewhat different today. But the horrible Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine highlights some worrisome facts about American-Russian relations. Mitt Romney was right. Russia is our biggest threat.
Read MorePutin bears responsibility for Malaysian plane attack: ex-WH adviser
We know that the Malaysian plane was brought down by a ground-to-air missile fired from Russian-made SA-11 weapons run by pro-Russian Ukranian rebel terrorists. We also know that Russia is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. in Ukraine, and that Russian special forces are leading the terrorist movement in Ukraine. We can add to this the proxy war fought by Russia in the Middle East, with its main ally Iran, and the fact that Russia is engaging in state-sponsored terrorism.
Whether President Obama understands all this, I don't know. His policies have been alternatively passive (Libya, Egypt), incoherent (Russian reset), and feckless (Syria). But the fact that the current U.S. economic recovery is the slowest in post-WWII history — spanning 70 years — is surely a key factor in Vladimir Putin's adventurism.
This brings us back to Reagan's link. Putin may recognize that Russia's economy is a thin deck of cards. But he surely doesn't fear the weak American economic position. Ditto for the broken economic dictatorships in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and the rising economic dictatorship in China. They don't fear us.
Read More Merkel talks tough, but can Europe back it up?
In fact, America's economic weakness is so worrying, one suspects our friends are losing respect for us too. Whether in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Israel, our allies know that America has been the backstop for freedom. If not us, who?
But can they say that now?
As I testified this week before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, at 2.1 percent average real growth, the U.S. is lagging far behind the 4.1 percent average recovery pace of the post-war business cycles. The Reagan recovery averaged 5 percent annual growth at the same point as the Obama recovery.
Obama's stock market, from the depth of the meltdown, does
beat Reagan's market and the post-war average for equities. But here's a
very worrisome trend: Over the entire post-war period, average yearly
growth has been 3.2 percent. And in the 1980s and '90s, growth was 3.7
percent. Since 2001, however, under Republican and Democratic presidents
and congresses, as the dollar lost over a third of its value growth has
dropped to only 1.8 percent annually. Something has clearly gone very
wrong.
For payrolls, Obama's five-year recovery has averaged annual job growth of 1.2 percent (7.9 million jobs). Reagan's was 3.1 percent (14.6 million jobs). Even with the recent jobs improvement, record numbers of Americans have dropped out of the labor force, part-time employment is replacing full-time, wages are abnormally low, and middle-class real incomes are falling.
The massive federal spending stimulus of 2009-2010 did not work. There were no so-called fiscal multipliers. The Federal Reserve's near-$3.5 trillion of balance-sheet creation also failed, with money multipliers and velocity rates collapsing. Obamacare has thrown a wet blanket over business hiring, hours worked, and full-time jobs. Business investment and housing have not really recovered.
Read MoreA bigger worry than geopoltics? The Fed
Over-regulation has stifled Main Street businesses and start-ups. The highest corporate tax rate among developed countries is forcing American businesses to flee to lower-tax nations, taking their cash and jobs with them. Tax hikes on personal income, capital gains, dividends, and payrolls are reducing growth incentives.
Ronald Reagan's free-enterprise growth model of easier taxes, limited government, lighter regulation, and sound money strengthened America both at home and abroad. Barack Obama's model of heavy-handed government, income redistribution, punishing success, and cheap money has diminished us at home and weakened us around the world.
Caveat emptor, voters. It's truly time for change.
—By CNBC's Larry Kudlow.
end quote from:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101849492?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=101849492
The single biggest weakness that I see right now in the western world is goods and services costing too much relative to the average person's income. In the 1950s a 17 year old male could support (Easily) about 7 people. Now, a 17 year old is lucky even to have a job and to live at home at the same time. And it would be questionable in many cases whether he could support even himself or herself with this job even with several roomates renting a house or apartment.
This is the sea change since the 1950s and 1960s which is debilitating the western world. But, it can't really be completely blamed on any one president. Many many circumstances worldwide led to this outcome.
In the 1960s I could afford at age 20 to buy a brand new 1968 Camaro and to make car payments at a good job as long as I lived at home. This wouldn't be true today likely if I was 20 years old now unless I had my own business which I did by age 28 in the late 1970s.
However, the biggest change I see is how much building materials cost now compared to the past. For example, the outside stairway (just the material) cost more for my friend in the past couple of years than the entire cost of the material to build his whole house in the 1970s with help from his friends including me.
So, for the average young person (even with a job) they likely couldn't afford to buy land and build a house in the pay as you go way we did then, which was we only paid as much for material as we had on hand after paying for food and shelter and clothes and transportation. This way when we were done our houses and land was paid for and we only had to pay property taxes because there wasn't any mortgage to pay.
For payrolls, Obama's five-year recovery has averaged annual job growth of 1.2 percent (7.9 million jobs). Reagan's was 3.1 percent (14.6 million jobs). Even with the recent jobs improvement, record numbers of Americans have dropped out of the labor force, part-time employment is replacing full-time, wages are abnormally low, and middle-class real incomes are falling.
The massive federal spending stimulus of 2009-2010 did not work. There were no so-called fiscal multipliers. The Federal Reserve's near-$3.5 trillion of balance-sheet creation also failed, with money multipliers and velocity rates collapsing. Obamacare has thrown a wet blanket over business hiring, hours worked, and full-time jobs. Business investment and housing have not really recovered.
Read MoreA bigger worry than geopoltics? The Fed
Over-regulation has stifled Main Street businesses and start-ups. The highest corporate tax rate among developed countries is forcing American businesses to flee to lower-tax nations, taking their cash and jobs with them. Tax hikes on personal income, capital gains, dividends, and payrolls are reducing growth incentives.
Ronald Reagan's free-enterprise growth model of easier taxes, limited government, lighter regulation, and sound money strengthened America both at home and abroad. Barack Obama's model of heavy-handed government, income redistribution, punishing success, and cheap money has diminished us at home and weakened us around the world.
Caveat emptor, voters. It's truly time for change.
—By CNBC's Larry Kudlow.
end quote from:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101849492?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=101849492
The single biggest weakness that I see right now in the western world is goods and services costing too much relative to the average person's income. In the 1950s a 17 year old male could support (Easily) about 7 people. Now, a 17 year old is lucky even to have a job and to live at home at the same time. And it would be questionable in many cases whether he could support even himself or herself with this job even with several roomates renting a house or apartment.
This is the sea change since the 1950s and 1960s which is debilitating the western world. But, it can't really be completely blamed on any one president. Many many circumstances worldwide led to this outcome.
In the 1960s I could afford at age 20 to buy a brand new 1968 Camaro and to make car payments at a good job as long as I lived at home. This wouldn't be true today likely if I was 20 years old now unless I had my own business which I did by age 28 in the late 1970s.
However, the biggest change I see is how much building materials cost now compared to the past. For example, the outside stairway (just the material) cost more for my friend in the past couple of years than the entire cost of the material to build his whole house in the 1970s with help from his friends including me.
So, for the average young person (even with a job) they likely couldn't afford to buy land and build a house in the pay as you go way we did then, which was we only paid as much for material as we had on hand after paying for food and shelter and clothes and transportation. This way when we were done our houses and land was paid for and we only had to pay property taxes because there wasn't any mortgage to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment