Was this below situation worse than Obama....by a mile and 10,000
Thank you for the response, although I don't fully understand why the economic hardship of Reagen's first two years are a great credit to him whereas Obama's first two years are proof of his incompetence.
I admit to not knowing the full circumstances that Reagen had inherited.
Is there an objective source that would support your/Hannity's claim that Reagen was dealt a worse hand?
Maybe we are missing something in the translation. When I say "shapeing up" I mean "clearly forming".
You have to remember that those job losses Bush posted in his last year started in the housing sector and moved on to include the financial sector. Obama's poor job postings were despite him injecting billions into the economy.
I did mis-understand.
I do understand that Obama's statistics had the stimulus, and both Presidents had the (supposed) benefit of the Bush cuts.
Since we agree that those billions improved the economy's indicators, are you suggesting that the stimulus wasn't big enough?
Reagan created jobs. Waiting on Obama's awesomeness still. Captain Unicorn sure spent a helluva lot more. Still waiting for awesomeness!!!
Still.....
I would prefer an objective source to support your/Hannity's claim.
Reagen created jobs after 8 years - hardly a fair juxtaposition for Obama's economy.
Quote:
When Reagan took office in January 1981 job growth had just come back to positive. Job growth rose until July and then in August 1981 returned to accelerated decline into negative numbers, going further negative than in the preceding recession. Total jobs did not return to their 1981 levels until June of 1983. The rise accelerated and leveled off around May 1984 Then During the first year of his second term growth declined for about a year, then rose back to more than 3 million new jobs a year.
What "problem" ? Certainly not the deficit. Bush reduced revenues and his budget did not include the wars or his favourite social programs.
I understood "shapening up" to mean improving. Did I mis-interpret that?
Did you mean the economy was tanking and that somehow supports your assertion that Obama is responsible unemployment levels?
No I meant "shaping up" to mean "forming". Obama walked into the Presidency fully aware of the challenge before him. He hasn't been up to the task.
I said earlier that Obama was responsible for unemployment going above 8%. He borrowed nearly a trillion dollars which future tax payers will be responsible for with the promise that this cash would keep unemployment under 8%. He was wrong and looking back it appears that much of it was ill spent with no chance of correcting the course of the economy.
Bush provided a budget to be voted on for every year he was in office. Sure he asked for money above the budget for the war and other expenses. That is far better than Obama operating without any budget at all. Some of Bush's faviourite social programs included: Aids drugs for Africa, Katrina relief and the formation Homeland Security.
How come does your chart show continuous if not slightly increasing war expenditures into 2019 when the largest of the 2 conflicts was winding down when Obama came into office? How do they know that so much future revenue will be lost without knowing the shape of the economy? Also, if the future economy is so rosy wouldn't the increased revenues from the current tax rates eat up a lot of the deficit? For that matter why show non taxed income as part of the deficit? It isn't unless you believe the government has some sort of right to it.
It is also, puzzling to see almost a consistant expenditure on recovery measures and an increase in economic downturn into 2019. Whoever made this chart doesn't have much hope for America. It is funny that someone would make that chart without knowing that the wars are over and the Bush tax cuts are about to expire.
I do understand that Obama's statistics had the stimulus, and both Presidents had the (supposed) benefit of the Bush cuts.
Since we agree that those billions improved the economy's indicators, are you suggesting that the stimulus wasn't big enough?
No I'm suggesting that it was misspent because it improved nothing according to your chart.
No I'm suggesting that it was misspent because it improved nothing according to your chart.
My chart in 351 suggests that it improved the job-situation greatly.
The CBO agrees:
Quote:
"[The stimulus bill] lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
I concede that Obama said that unemployment would remain under 8% with his bill, but I doubt that even you consider that claim to be a reliable foundation for evaluating the success of the stimulus.
No I meant "shaping up" to mean "forming". Obama walked into the Presidency fully aware of the challenge before him. He hasn't been up to the task.
By what criteria?
'Things still suck therefore it's Obama's fault' is intellectually lazy.
Would a McCain Presidency have kept unemployment under 8% while reducing the deficit? Would a Clinton Presidency have spent the stimulus money better? How would we know if he was up to the task? What criteria are you using?
edit - open question to everyone in this thread that think Obama is failing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I said earlier that Obama was responsible for unemployment going above 8%. He borrowed nearly a trillion dollars which future tax payers will be responsible for with the promise that this cash would keep unemployment under 8%. He was wrong and looking back it appears that much of it was ill spent with no chance of correcting the course of the economy.
He was wrong about staying under 8%. Also, economists have revised their analysis of the recession to reflect that it was far worse than they had anticipated.
(my link in post 350 supports this claim)
But your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Obama being wrong about the unemployment number is not evidence that he wasted the money (ignoring the presumption that it was he who decided where to spend it all) nor that the economy has no chance of correcting. One is not evidence of the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Bush provided a budget to be voted on for every year he was in office. Sure he asked for money above the budget for the war and other expenses. That is far better than Obama operating without any budget at all. Some of Bush's faviourite social programs included: Aids drugs for Africa, Katrina relief and the formation Homeland Security.
Bush didn't include Iraq or Afganistan in his budget, nor did he include his prescription drug program. Bush's budget was baloney.
And using the lack of a budget as a criticism of Obama is the kind of "screw 'em all" attitude that congressional intransigence is hoping for. The budget is under the pervue of Congress.
How come does your chart show continuous if not slightly increasing war expenditures into 2019 when the largest of the 2 conflicts was winding down when Obama came into office? How do they know that so much future revenue will be lost without knowing the shape of the economy? Also, if the future economy is so rosy wouldn't the increased revenues from the current tax rates eat up a lot of the deficit? For that matter why show non taxed income as part of the deficit? It isn't unless you believe the government has some sort of right to it.
I assume the debt + interest, I'm not really sure.
Projections have limited usefulness, but if we cut the graph off at the point where data is (somewhat) finalized then the underlying point remains:
Bush's policies, including the financial crisis, are the most obvious reason for the current state of the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...the Bush tax cuts are about to expire.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Is any of this supposed to support your claim that Obama is responsible for media bias? Or the Tea Party? (344)
Last edited by Gozer; 12-29-2011 at 04:41 AM.
Reason: typo, added budget link
Reagan did not have anything approaching the mess Obama inherited. I'm not commenting on how this mess has been dealt with, that is a separate matter for debate, whereas this isn't even an issue for debate.
And somehow he turned that $200 million/day into a trillion dollar deficit. He has spent more money per year than any other President.
I mean we can sit here all day and blame Bush, Clinton and the rest for problems they DID create, but that won't fix anything.
Obama has not even attempted to fix the spending problem. $3 trillion dollar deficit reduction over 10 years? Seriously? At the rate the US is spending money right now, that won't even make a dent.
Oh please , If your wife piles up your credit cards and leaves you... what happens?
When he took office the country was like a stinky turd in a toilet, unfortunately for him he had to flush it.
The only deficit Obama can be directly blamed for is creating healthcare for those who couldn't afford it and to create jobs to try and get the waste of skin country he took over back on it's feet.
I would prefer an objective source to support your/Hannity's claim.
My Hannity claim versus you Maddow claim. I have never watched either, but you have, obviously.
I am not comparing the current situation. The current situation is far more bleak and there is no leader to be found unlike 1980. The economic situation when Reagan came to power was far worse than the day Obama came to power. Not sure WHY I have to have a link for you. It is that obvious. The unemployment the day Captain Unicorn grabbed power was below 8%. At Reagan's inauguration it was above the 8% mark. Both economies were plummeting and were/are being compared to the Great Depression.
The foreign policy situation for Reagan was far more bleak. FAR MORE. Obama wasn't/isn't even in the same galaxy.
It is amazing that people today truly cannot fathom how mighty or evil the Soviet Union was. And in 1980 they were winning. Or at least everyone, themselves included, thought so.
Not sure if a tax that would only generate $50 billion per year is a solution to anything.
The tax system needs a complete overhaul. And spending needs to be cut back.
But when you run a $100 billion dollar monthly deficit, you can't possibly expect to raise taxes fast enough to combat it, ESPECIALLY in the middle of a recession.
I don't disagree, was just pointing out that CalgaryBorn likes to play a card and then pretend that he addresses responses when the reality is that he simply moves the goal posts each time.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
I know he had nothing to do with it. As per Valo's post it is about what he had to deal with it.
Reagan had a worse economic condition at the beginning of his Presidency. FAR worse than Obama. Obama continued the Cony Capitalism to the Nth degree and was rewarded with a recession. No, not all his fault, because the European Union owns a lot of it too. But he sure didn't create any soft landing. Instead of taking a bitter pill to let companies (GM and Chrysler) and banks fail, he continues Bush's bank bail out and propped up crappy companies. And now we all benefit from his largesse. Nice recession that is looking like it will trump the last one.
Nm, misread your post
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Oh please , If your wife piles up your credit cards and leaves you... what happens?
When he took office the country was like a stinky turd in a toilet, unfortunately for him he had to flush it.
The only deficit Obama can be directly blamed for is creating healthcare for those who couldn't afford it and to create jobs to try and get the waste of skin country he took over back on it's feet.
How did he flush it? Obama has made no attempt to curb the deficit. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
The 'healthcare' deficit isn't even on the books yet. As has been mentioned before Obamacare hasn't even set in yet.
Yet he is still spending record amount of money, and seems to have no intention of slowing down.
The majority of jobs Obama preserved were government jobs. Most of his stimulus went to the States to preserve Union jobs. The problem with that tactic was when the money is spent those jobs will be lost anyways. Also, it slowed most States from doing the belt tightening they need to do. Government workers high salaries and pensions are a major drain of State and County revenue. Its not suprising that the CBO would believe that the stimulus preserved millions of jobs. All you have to do is convince them that GM and Chrysler would shut its doors forever without government intervention and that the State's projected loss of teachers, cops, and firefighters were true. If you feed the CBO garbage its conclusions will be garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
I concede that Obama said that unemployment would remain under 8% with his bill, but I doubt that even you consider that claim to be a reliable foundation for evaluating the success of the stimulus.
What Obama made there was a trillion dollar promise. You can't treat it as just another broken election promise because of the money attached to it. American tax payers have every right to expect the promised results when they are paying such a premium price. Dipping above 8% briefly would have been one thing but, to be that wrong with that amount of wealth spent is unforgiveable.
And again it needs to be acknowledged: Obama isn't responsible for this down turn but, he took the job fully aware of the challenges before him. 3 years in is a little late to be giving Obama a pass because he didn't create the mess.
The majority of jobs Obama preserved were government jobs. Most of his stimulus went to the States to preserve Union jobs. The problem with that tactic was when the money is spent those jobs will be lost anyways. Also, it slowed most States from doing the belt tightening they need to do. Government workers high salaries and pensions are a major drain of State and County revenue. Its not suprising that the CBO would believe that the stimulus preserved millions of jobs. All you have to do is convince them that GM and Chrysler would shut its doors forever without government intervention and that the State's projected loss of teachers, cops, and firefighters were true. If you feed the CBO garbage its conclusions will be garbage.
.
If I recall right, one of the biggest jumps in employment came from the expected temporay jobs created by the Census, once the census finished unemployment went back to higher levels.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
My Hannity claim versus you Maddow claim. I have never watched either, but you have, obviously.
Zing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Not sure WHY I have to have a link for you. It is that obvious.
You don't have to support your claims around here (unfortunately) but it certainly helps folks that like me understand issues better.
You said that Reagen inherited a far worse economic situation, I asked you to provide an objective party that would support that claim.
If it's super-obvious, it shouldn't be that hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
LINK 1
Listing five statistics with no effort at context isn't a great basis to form an opinion, but thank you for posting what I asked for, even if it is just a headline.
, If your wife piles up your credit cards and leaves you... what happens? 
