Both men dramatically increased deficit spending to pull us out of recession. Reagan spent on missiles and defense. Obama is spending on cars for clunkers, healthcare for everyone, and continuing to support banks and homeowners.
What I like about both is that they both are counter-cyclical. The worst thing you can do is spend money at times of great prosperity (Bush and the tax refunds), or save money at times of great strain. All public policy should be counter cyclical.
Like most fanatics you have it wrong. There was alot of deficit spending before Reagan, mostly imposed by the Democrat's Great Society programs. Democrats and Republican presidents covered it up by just printing more money, rather than borrowing. The result was increasing inflation with very low growth. The era of Stag-Flation was that of the 70s. The inflation topped out at around 14% a year, with all the COLAs in labor contracts this created a major growth in the cost of labor. This is not the case with Obama, he didn't have this problem.
Reagan's response was to turn off the printing presses and accept the responsibility of borrown to finance the deficit. Inflation virtually vanished. However, this increased the national debt, but saved the dollar from further devaluation. The Reagan tax cuts brought a major increase in government revenue, it proved again that cutting taxes adds to revenue. The major downfall was that Reagan didn't do enough to fight the Democrats over the budget, since they wanted massive increases in social spending and Reagan wanted inceased military spending. To get what he wanted, he had to give them what they wanted. So even the increased revenue wasn't enough. Obama in no way can be compared to Reagan.
Obama is not only massively deficit spending, he is massively printing more and more dollars to cover the balance of his deficits. Obama is also massively increasing the size, scope and cost of government for generations to come. By his administrations own admission, they will double the national debt in nine years. This will of course double the interest payments on the debt; while the printing of more paper money will continue to shrink the value of those dollars. It is a very dangerous policy to follow, as it could trigger run away inflation like Zimbabwe has, Argentina had and Weimar Germany had. I know the left doesn't like to think about rational economic policies, since they all think money comes from money trees, but Obama could ruin the lives of the next several generations.
Reagan won the cold war without any casualties.
That was the result of his defense spending.
Reagan also lowered taxes and simplified the
tax code, which has been un-done since the 1980s.
Using obama and Reagan in the same sentance is sacrilegious. Everyone knows Reagan was a great President who supported America. Obama is a Marxist trying to bring down America. They are not similar; in fact, one could call it a contrasts between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness or even American and Unamerican.
If the $80000 or so per person debt (just my guess) that has now been acrued from all these illegal rediculous bailouts had just been given tax free to registered voters the economy would be roaring, the housing market would be a non issue small business starts would beat back unemployment.
How many of the billions ended up being deposited in foreign banks, never to benefit the US economy?