Those on the Left become apoplectic whenever anyone lauds Reaganomics. Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if one doesn't recognize what Reaganomics entailed. The Library of Economics and Liberty also has information, information that is condensed and more reader-friendly.
In any case, consider the Daily Caller video below the fold (with thanks to Mustang for emailing me the link).
A brief comparison of Obamanomics and Reaganomics from the Wall Street Journal, dated August 26, 2011, states in part:
If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.Please read it all – never mind that economics is sometimes justly referred to as "the dismal science."
The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.
By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.
My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy....
Since at least 1980, when the American electorate has perceived the economy as an overriding election issue, the incumbent or the seated President's party has lost the election. Is it any wonder, then, that Obama is trying to paint as rosy a picture as possible when it comes to our ailing economy and that he is also concentrating on as many digressions, diversions, and deflections as possible?