The truth is slippery alright

There's an amazing bit of pro-Democrat piece of propaganda at Forbes, which claims that Obama's economic stewardship is better than Reagan's.  Something that really sticks out like a sore thumb---why Forbes?  Wasn't Forbes supposed to be a bit conservative?  Why would they print something like this, for heaven's sake?

There has been a tendency to compare the two presidents since the election of Obama.  The left would love for Obama to be as highly esteemed as Reagan, but that doesn't seem likely for the moment.  The public certainly doesn't think so.  Reagan enjoyed good popular ratings for most of his presidency.  Obama has struggled.

There are those who are inclined to believe this stuff, though.  If your biases tend toward one side more than the other, you are more likely to have strong views that would support one or the other as being the best president.  Obviously, both sides cannot be right simultaneously.  The truth is there, but who is right and who is wrong?

Another presumption of this article implies that presidents have all that much to do with economic performance.  In fact, Reagan's approach was deregulation as opposed to more regulation that the left prefers.  That's the difference between the two approaches.  Reagan believed in unleashing the market, while Obama wants to do the opposite.  This presumption of economic stewardship is the bright red line that differentiates the fundamental differences between the two men.  Reagan was strongly anti-communist while Obama's mentor was a communist.  Reagan wanted prayer in schools, Obama declared America to no longer be a "Christian nation".  In short, Reagan's approach is still on our coins---In God We Trust"---while Obama would prefer that we all trust him instead.  It's not the president, therefore, that determines economic performance, it is the removal of interference in the form of regulations, and the reliance upon market forces instead that determines performance.  Reagan was much better, as his predecessors were moving to impose even greater regulations upon an American economy that had struggled through the previous decade.  He reversed the course and led the country forward.  With Obama, we are moving backward to the seventies model of economic stagnation.

My vote is with Reagan by far.  The Forbes article cites a bunch of statistics that are being touted as proof of Obama's superior stewardship of the economy.  You can always point to the old saying---there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Reagan won the Cold War.  Obama took a won war in Iraq and the war on Terror and is proceeding to lose it.  Reagan championed America.  What is Obama doing?  The great danger here is that people can be deceived.  To some, the difference between the two men are like the difference between night and day.  Yet, people looking at these statistics and this source, and conclude that Obama really is a better president.  But not two separate points of view that are as different as these two men can be right at the same time.  One or the other must be right.  Can the truth emerge from the fog of propaganda?  We'll see.

Update:

If Rush Limbaugh doesn't lead with this one, and stay with it all day long on his show, shame on him.  He is supposed to be one of Reagan's greatest champions.  This piece of left-wing propaganda deserves a rather stiff rebuttal.

Update:

Why do you suppose Forbes put up this pro-Democrat propaganda?  Were they forced to by the ObamaBots?  Or has Forbes become one of those against we strive---the moneygrubbers.  They love money so much that they'll do anything, including betrayal like Judas Iscariot.  Yessiree, I'm bringing that up, for that is what may be ailing us, the rebellion against God.  Now, Limbaugh is being put to the test.  Does Limbaugh love money, or what does he love?  Who does he serve?

Update ( 4:45 pm ) :

I listened to the beginning of the show and one other time during the day.  Plus, I went to his website just now, and not a mention.

Hey, I didn't need to do that.  I bought a couple of his books back in the nineties.  He said something to the effect that liberals love money too.  So, he admits loving money.

Well, we all love money.  If you win the lottery, are you going to turn it down?  A rich uncle leaves you millions, you are going to turn that down?  Well, somebody might do that, but most would not.

The point is whether or not to love money above all things, including God.  You cannot serve two masters.

I'm suspecting that Limbaugh loves his money a little too much.