A Simple Infographic to Understand the Choice in 2016… More Barack Obama or a Return to Reagan


One of the most difficult games to play in politics is the notion of what might have been… How might things have been different had JFK not been shot? How might have things have been different had Al Gore won in 2000? How might things have been different had Mitt Romney or John McCain not run inept campaigns against Barack Obama?

We’ll never know what the outcomes might have been because there really is no way to objectively measure that when it comes to policy. Would JFK have scaled up Vietnam the way LBJ did or, if he did, would the Camelot mystique have protected him from the vilification that LBJ endured? Had Al Gore been in office on September 11th would we have invaded Iraq as he was on record believing Saddam had WMDs? We can speculate, but we can’t know.

We can however play the game that compares real data between presidents. And now might be a good time for that given we’ve got a presidential election coming.  On the one side are candidates seeking to maintain and further the liberal “successes” of Barack Obama, while on the other are a plethora of candidates seeking to harness the spirit of Ronald Reagan, inspired by his less is more approach to government.

And of course the press provides little actionable information when it comes to whose policies really were / are superior.  Witness their crowing about the unemployment rate hitting a seven year low without explaining (or understanding for that matter) the cause, which is certainly not a strong economy, but rather because people are exiting the workforce at a rate not seen since the 1970’s.

Given that, I’ve created a simple infographic that just might help. (Click here to download a larger image and here to download a high res version)  It looks eight measures that shed light on whether a future that furthers the ideas of Obama or Reagan might a better choice.  Unlike notions of what might have been, it compares actual outcomes on those eight measures during the first six years of each administration.  From inflation to the LFPR to food stamps, hopefully this handy infographic will help make the decision as to who to pull the lever for in 2016 just a little bit easier.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s Bush’s fault. Global warming. War on women. Racist.

Reagan increased taxes enlarged the Fedeal hovernment and the War on Drugs he dodo traded missiles to Iran gir hostages. Then lied about it
Obama inherited 2 stupid wars and a Dow that had fallen by 50% Obama’s unemployment rate would have been lower but he has decreased the number of people workkngninbyhe Federal Government while Reagans would have been higher except he increased the number working for the government
On the plus side Reagan did warn us about global warming his big crush on Maggie Thatcher who was quite the early outspoken advocate on the coming danger probably helped sway him to the science

The problem with many of the obama years numbers is that they are essentially faked as the formulas were wildly changed since the Reagan years. Both inflation and employment numbers are like comparing apple production in the Reagan years and orange production in the obama years.


For the life of me I do not understand how anyone on the left can applaud Obama making Wall St richer while making everyone else poorer.

BTW, Obama called the Afghanistan war a “war of necessity.”

There are two ways to lower unemployment. One is to create jobs. The other is force people out of the workforce. Obama has chosen the latter and once again, you amaze me with your support of this.

Great graphic, Vince

Awesome post, Vince. Can I get your permission to print off what you wrote and give it someone who doesn’t have a computer? Or perhaps I need to ask Curt that question as well.

@John: As much as I usually disagree with you your posts are at least generally coherent. C’mon man! Getting drunk in the morning when it’s not even football season isn’t cool – lay off the drinking an commenting!

@John: Are you familiar with the English language? Just wondering.

Reagan increased taxes enlarged the Fedeal hovernment and the War on Drugs he dodo traded missiles to Iran gir hostages. Then lied about it

“he dodo”? Such a potty mouth. Reagan had to rebuild the military Carter worked so hard to dismantle. That cost money. Also, Reagan did NOT lie about Iran-Contra. Were you a fan of the truth, you would know that rather than lying, Reagan took responsibility. Now, as a fan of Obama, I am fully aware that you would not be familiar with someone taking responsibility for what their administration has done (since you support lying, blaming others and shedding all responsibility) but Reagan showed what it is like to have an adult in the White House.

Another thing, kind of important. Reagan ran the old USSR out of business. That is a fact. Freedom broke out all over the former soviet satellite countries. Libs here may not admit it but people in places like Poland know the truth.

Obama on the other hand being the “peace” candidate has war breaking out all over the middle east as he facilitates Iran going nuclear. Here at home he is fomenting race wars with the police. I actually have friends who voted for Obama because they didn’t want any more war. Yet they still will not admit anything. They are just like him, NOTHING is his fault. @John as we see here is one of those who don’t deal well with reality.

@Mully: Democrats don’t often start wars, but when they do, they leave a screwed up mess for the following administration. Kennedy kicked off Vietnam and Johnson ramped it up (with no intention of winning anything), then Nixon got hammered because he didn’t cut and run fast enough (with the ensuing lesson-to-be-ignored collapse of the Republic of Vietnam). Then, instead of dealing with al Qaeda and bin Laden as he could have, Clinton just hoped the whole problem would just solve itself… which, of course, it didn’t. Then Bush had to deal with the fallout of THAT.

Ultimately, Bush secured Iraq and had Afghanistan under control when along come Mr. Charisma to woo our enemies and make them love us. Oh, make no mistake; unless someone launches a ground campaign against the continental United States, Obama is not going to go out and START a war, but you can rest assured another conflict is brewing (several, perhaps) due to the complete disaster of this idiot’s foreign policy.

Those damned war-mongering Republicans.

@Vince: Thanks. Much appreciated. This individual doesn’t have internet and he’s amazed at the info that is out there that contradicts what he hears and reads in the “news”. For example, even conservative outlets like FOX are still erroneously talking about how there was no WMD in Iraq despite all of those declassified documents that came out proving there was.

And on cue, the clueless left is now trying to blame the Amtrack crash on federal budget cuts for infrastructure, rather than the apparent irresponsibility of the engineer driving over 100 mils an hour on a curve designed for 50 mph max.

Because the answer to EVERY problem is spending more federal tax dollars taken from the top earners, right? Even the pesky reality of the laws of centripetal force….

@Pete: Yeah, so let’s see… A budget cut today caused a train wreck last night. I guess that makes sense in lib-think.

Everything having to do with the U.S. economy was coming up roses at the point when Obama took office, wasn’t it?

This comparison is ludicrous. The economy that Barack Obama inherited on January 20, 2009 was a total disaster. There were no positive indicators at that point. There was speculation that the national and world economies were headed toward catastrophe.

Compare that with where we are now, and you’ll have made a valid comparison.

@Greg: No, the comparison is NOT ludicrous. Carter had cratered the economy when Reagan was elected. Liberal social policies had cratered the economy for Obama. Reagan did what was needed to recover the economy. Obama just made the situation worse, leaving the next President the same mess he mishandled.

@Bill, #16:

This is another right-wing fairy tale. Carter, who took office in January 1977, didn’t “crater the economy.” The U.S. economy was shaky throughout the 1970s and on into the 1980s. There had been recessions from December 1969 through November 1970 and again from November 1973 through March 1975. The recessions from January 1980 through July 1980 and from July 1981 through November 1982 were all part of a repeating pattern that began long before Carter took office. Inflation had begun climbing out of control in mid-1973. It was at double-digit levels through nearly all of 1974, spiked again during Carter’s term, and escalated yet again during Reagan’s first year in office. Carter also had the Energy Crisis to contend with, which had its beginnings during the Nixon administration.

Jimmy Carter had an incredibly tough row to hoe. Most of the problems he had to deal with were systemic and existed before he took office.

@Greg: Ahhh… so what you are saying is that Carter did not follow some mystical, unidentified “Carter economic policies” which caused the worst economy we had since the Depression… until Obama arrived on the scene. Unlike, of course, Bush’s mystical and unidentified “Bush economic policies” which caused the 2007 recession. Right?

The economy tanked under Carter. He just stood by and let it happen, whining about “malaise” instead of acting to reduce regulations, increase energy production and keep the military strong to face threats. Reagan fixed the mess Carter left.

Bush’s economy collapsed because of the impacts and burdens of the Community Reinvestment Act (created by Carter…. well, waddaya know?). Obama PROMISED to fix this in three years. Well, it’s been almost 7 and we still have more unemployed than ever before, no economic growth, no growth in wages, no exports, no exploiting of the opportunity to become energy independent and no manufacturing. What we do have is taxes, regulations and excuses. Too bad that won’t put bread on the table. Liberals cannot handle economic issues.