In 1983, Ronald Reagan had an unemployment rate of 10.5%...

[kentuck]

and the next year, he won a landslide election. How?

This was also when he decided to "reform" the Social Security system by raising the rates on most of working America, by increasing their FICA taxes in order to "save" the system. He also decided to include the military in the numbers of employed, which helped to keep the numbers down. He blamed it all on Jimmy Carter. Successfully, I might add.

Now Barack Obama is approaching the same unemployment numbers as Ronald Reagan in 1983. Can he successfully blame it on George W Bush?? The numbers may be similar but the economic environments are very different. The banking system in 1983 were not a near collapse. We did not have the same threats to our economic system as we do today. There was room for productivity then that we do not have now.

Will Barack Obama be able to replicate Reagan's victory with the high unemployment numbers? Only if we can start producing jobs by 2012. In the meantime, he should not waste the opportunity to lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of George W Bush and the Republicans.

[AllieB]

1. I'm sure they blamed that on Carter, like Bush blamed the 2001 recession on Clinton

:eyes:

[liberal N proud]

3. But this time it's Obama's fault

They always work the propaganda so as to never blame the republican who caused the whole fucking mess.

I was part of the Reagan unemployed, they never extended unemployment benefits then.

[NYC_SKP]

2. And: The terms, "Outsourcing" and "NAFTA" hadn't even been created.

Yes, Obama faces obstacles laid out before him by every one of his predecessors since Carter.

:patriot:

[Jim__]

4. "Morning in America."

Not only was did we have Reagan's record of high unemployment, Reagan actually had an episode where he completely spaced out during a presidential debate in '84 (I think it was the 1st presidential debate).

But reagan smiled a lot, and the media assured us he was a great guy to be around. He ran an ad campaign of "Morning in America" that assured everyone America was doing great. How could he possibly lose?

[laughingliberal]

5. I use this all the time when Republicans spew at me about unemployment

I look very seriously at them and say, "I know. It's horrible. The last time we had unemployment this high, was 2 years after Reagan took office."

[FBaggins]

6. Simple answer

It isn't the absolute rate that matters.

Reagan wasn't reelected in 1983... it was late 1984.

Unemployment fell steadily and rapidly through 1983 and 1984. By the time the election rolled around (and no, I'm not defending Reagan) people had several months of things clearly "getting better" (with the rate down to the low 7s). Whether credit should go to him (it really belongs with the Fed) or not is irrelevant. He GOT the credit.



The President can absolutely benefit from the same efffect. I can't see unemployment being this bad three years from now.

But we're talking about NEXT year. Unemployment needs to improve noticibly and consistently from no later than July (maybe earlier) thru election day.


On edit - Oh... and Reagan got to run against Mondale. We'll see who the President draws this time around. Maybe we'll get lucky and it will be Palin. :)

[Jim__]

7. delete.

[Cosmocat]

13. great reply ...

it is amazing how often people use history to back up a point when not being exactly square with history ...

Also, the turnaround on people's attention this days is about 5 seconds.

Unemployment NOW is not even going to be an ancient memory.

The bottom line is some progress. Even if it dips a bit between now and February or March, as long as it takes even a small uptick going into next Novemeber, and other numbers are good or OK, the Ds can say things are getting better, and all of the nonstop shrill apocolyptic screaming from the right will become noise ...

We can just hope that the elections are about what is going on back home - if so, there will be some seats lost in the house because turnout will not be what it was for the presidential.

Then, two more years for nature to take its course and things to show a little more turnaround for the reelection ...

[emulatorloo]

25. Well I like the original post, as I am tired of Freepers and their "Saint Ronnie" nonsense.

It is helpful to remind them occasionally about the high taxes and unemployment etc under Reagan.

[FBaggins]

26. Nothing at all wrong with pointing out Ronnie's errors

That doesn't mean that they apply to every situation.

Yes... unemployment was high during his first two years (and rising)... but he didn't win in '84 by somehow overcoming high unemployment... it was no longer high by that point (and was improving). This happens to be more due to the fed chief that Carter gave us... but the electorate didn't know that.

[kentuck]

15. "Reagan wasn't reelected in 1983... it was late 1984."

The OP stated: "In 1983, Ronald Reagan had an unemployment rate of 10.5%...
and the next year, he won a landslide election. How?"

Also, the OP said: "Will Barack Obama be able to replicate Reagan's victory with the high unemployment numbers? Only if we can start producing jobs by 2012."

[FBaggins]

19. The OP also said

"will he be able to blame it on Bush".

My point was that we win if he doesn't HAVE to blame anybody. Blame only comes when you can't say "are you better off than you were four years ago" or "things are clearly improving now that my policies have been implemented"

My reply wasn't so much a rebuttal... it was a response and an amplification.

[kentuck]

20. They effectively blamed it on Carter.

I think Nixon and Ford were actually more to blame for doing nothing about the oil crisis of 1973. It came back to haunt Carter, along with the Iranian hostage crisis.

And when you say, "are you better off than you were 4 years ago", are you talking about the day that Obama came into office? It was in pretty damn bad shape.

[FBaggins]

24. Not in 1984 they didn't.

I think Nixon and Ford were actually more to blame for doing nothing about the oil crisis of 1973

Of course. People love to associate these things with recent decisions when economics is far more complicated than that. Part of today's problems most certainly go back to Reagan. But you can't effectively blame him any more than Republicans can blame Clinton eight years later.

<i>And when you say, "are you better off than you were 4 years ago", are you talking about the day that Obama came into office?</i><P>

Of course. Or anything around that time. The problem is that the people are kind of like that example Bill Bryson gives about feedind a bear in the woods. A bear won't attack you unless you provoke him. The problem is that the bear gets to decide when he's provoked. If things are clearly improving from 2011-2012 then the President has an excellent chance of a big win.

This is particularly important because we will likely lose a few seats (but not control) in Congress next year. The Senate races look much harder in 2012 and 2014 (just because we have so much more ground to defend). The Presiden't coat-tails must pull in the right direction.

[kentuck]

27. Yes, they did blame Carter in 1984...

and in 1988. and in 1992.

[FBaggins]

29. Can you provide a link?

Let's face it... there wasn't much to "blame" on arter in 1984.

In order to "blame" a prior president, someone would have had to ask him to explain why something was going poorly... then he could say "not really my fault".

So what was it that had to be blamed on Carter?

The economy wasn't the issue that year. Mondale ran on the ERA and a nuclear freeze... how did ronnie shift that to being Carter's fault? The economic issues he raised were that the tax changes weren't fair (they weren't)... or that they would blow out the deficit (they did).

Reagan didn't "blame" Carter for current problems... he compared the then-current performance (which wasn't to his credit) to that of the prior four years (which weren't Carter's fault) and then tied Mondale to Carter (not hard as his VP).

[kentuck]

31. You don't remember?

Hmmmm..

[FBaggins]

32. Is that a "no"?

n/t

[kentuck]

33. That is ....

if you don't remember, then you have no need for a "link". I would bet most folks here remember them beating on Jimmy Carter for years and years? How old are you? Were you born when Reagan was king?

[FBaggins]

34. I'm plenty old enough, thanks.

Wasn't quite old enough to vote against him the first time, but I remember it clearly enough.

He blamed Carter for anything and everything in '79 and '80. He continued to blame him for the weak economy well into his first term and tried to in the off-year election of '82 where we picked back up almost all the House seats we lost in 1980. This was because things sucked and he had to have an excuse that didn't point back at him.

Try googling "Reagan blamed Carter" and I'll bet almost everything is from 1979-1982.

By the time the 1984 election rolled around, however, he wasn't "blaming" anyone. You couldn't "blame" Carter for an economy that was clearly improving rapidly. Again... this isn't an attempt to say that he deserved credit for it... but he clearly took it.

In order to "blame" Carter during the 1984 election, there would have to be some topic that he might be blamed for that he needed to shift to someoen else (as he did in 1982)


For the record... I just pulled up the three 1984 debates (one VP) cand can't see anywhere where Reagan blames Carter for any current economic situation. The closest he comes is when questioned on Social Security changes after the '82 elections.


On edit - Unless you're using "blame" in an entirely different way? I see you pointing out that they were "beating on him" for years and years. That's entirely different. That's not blaming him for their current mistakes/problems (or for the then-current economic conditions)... that's drawing a comparison between what they wanted to take credit for (a solid-appearing economy) and what they wanted to tie to Carter. That's part and parcel of saying "are you better off now"... but entirely different from what we're talking about here. These are CURRENTLY bad times economically that are clearly Bush's fault. If they remain tough, we can expect the president to "blame Bush". If things improve he won't be blaming Bush for the current conditons... he'll be taking credit for them.

[kentuck]

35. Republicans still blame Carter today...

for weakening our defense, by kowtowing to Arafat, by not doing anything about the Iranian hostage crisis, for the high inflation and interest rates of the late 70's and early 80's. Jimmy Carter was a gift that kept on giving for many years for the Republicans. Dukakis was shackled by it in 1988, as was Mondale in 1984. Clinton would not be seen with Carter in his campaign of 1992 for fear of being labeled "weak".

[FBaggins]

36. Again... that's different

Or maybe I didn't update that last post before you read it.

We're talking about something that could hurt us in this coming election that we instead (correctly) shift blame for onto Bush. The economy sucks because it STILL sucks from what he did... "it isn't our fault". Reagan didn't "blame" Carter for poor economic conditions in '84 and following that would otherwise be seen as Reagan's fault because he wanted credit for current economic conditions.

Republicans compare reagan/bush/etc to Carter because the public perception is that things really sucked then.

Gotta run. Going to the Wake Forest Soccer game.

[Bitwit1234]

8. No body thought to check the ballots

back then. I think republicans have been scamming the public since Prescott Bush tried to overthrow the government back in the 1930's. Which by the way is never mentioned by the media. But how many times have them brought up democrats actions back then.

[Eric68601]

9. 2012 will be to late

Obama needs to kick it up by at most 2011 late 2010'. If the jobs started finally kicking in during an election year, the frustration voters will kick in by then and vote for the other guy no matter who he is. Obama needs to pull off a strong rebound early next year, or even a DROP by any percentage this year to gain any credibility. All the other guy has to say is "I'll change that", remember, Bush ran on a campaign of "CHANGE" as well.

I mean, I think it's great that the DOW went up to 10k, loans were paid off, money is being made, and I understand the government can't pull jobs out of it's ass, nor can it keep trying to pump money into small business.

Small business trying to sustain each other in the community is like selling avon to yourself and bragging about the commission checks.

My town is gonna have 200+ jobs lost this next year, at least everyone who works at that plant got the advance warning 1 year before.

200 might not seem like many in the grander scheme of things, but 200 unemployed families is ALOT for a town with a population of 20,000+.

How about sending us some of them green jobs you want to start, we have the factory space, let's get to producing, send us some money for equipment and inventory, and a project, this is America, the story in my town is no different from other towns. We need jobs.

I get sick of hearing about those fabled "conservative values" in my state for the reason our unemployment only stands at 4.9%.

Uh, duh, it has to do with the population and the job ratios, why do you think Nebraska gets so damn few electorals even though it's bigger then alot of states that get more. Conservative values my ass. Now that reality of job loss is coming to my community. Makes me wonder what they have to say about those strong values now.

[notesdev]

10. Hard to make that argument

when the Democrats in office have adopted such an amazingly terrible economic platform, keep Geithner in charge of Treasury, re-appoint Bernanke to the Fed, keep Summers on the NEC, then engage in an orgy of spending the likes of which the world has never seen before, with the vast majority of the money going to the very kinds of folks (investment bankers) who were the primary agents that created the problem in the first place. TARP - major fail. Stimulus - big time fail. CFC - uber fail. First-time homebuyer credit - fraudsters' paradise (and being renewed even after that is known!) And on and on and on. Then we have things like Cap & Trade which will do nothing for the environment but it sure will make Goldman Sachs a lot of money - while choking economic activity in every other sector. Then we have people talking about raising taxes while so many people are struggling to eat! Should I mention that no one is amused that "Friends of Angelo" like Dodd and Towns still sit on finance committees, and that the Senate couldn't find a thing wrong with obvious bribery from Countrywide (the poster child for fraudulent home loans which brought down the industry)?

The GOP couldn't have scripted the Democrats' actions better, to set up for recapturing the House in 2010. Democrats need to seriously clean house as the FIRST order of business - put aside health care and everything else - because nothing we can do can change the situation that the regular Joe finds himself in as long as all legislation must pass through the hands of industry-bribed politicians.

[deaniac21]

11. At least we are doing better than somebody.

[madrchsod]

12. it took the economy 3-5 years to recover....

and we had had ten`s of thousand more manufacturing plants than we do now. we also had more banking regulations and nafta was still a wet dream.


"we have a long way to go and a short time to get there"

[LeftinOH]

14. Reagan kept us safe from the Grenadian menace in '83 -n/t

[Nederland]

16. On election day it was 7.2% so he won

If unemployment is that low by the time 2012 rolls around, Obama will win re-election too.

[intheflow]

17. Actually, the banking system was near collapse in 1983.

We just hadn't learned of the S&L crisis yet. But it was there, built on shaky mortgage loans, mostly. Republicans just never learn!

[kentuck]

18. Yes, the S&L crisis was very bad.

But it was not as severe as the present banking crisis. And it was not until 1989, under Bush I, that the S&L crisis fully developed.

[TomCADem]

21. Context Is Totally Wrong - The Reagan Myth - 1983 Is Two Years After Reagan Took Office

Unemployment from 1980 (Carter's last year) through 1981 had held steady at around 7 percent until October 1981. Reagan managed to get his tax cuts to the rich passed. THEN, unemployment began its steady rise from the 7 percent range to over 10 percent in 1983, two years later. Reagan's approval ratings sunk to 35 percent.

Under President Obama, unemployment was already falling through the floor when President Obama took office. If you look at unemployment, it was rapidly heading down in the fourth quarter of 2008. So, unlike President Reagan, President Obama did not inherit a steady unemployment rate of 7 percent.

Also, the economy is recovering, BUT this is a deeper recession than the 1980s due to the systemic problems left by the Bush administration, and unemployment is a lagging indicator.

So, unemployment should fall under 10 percent in 2010, which is a full two years earlier than under Reagan. Also, with Reagan, the rise in unemployment began under him, he did not inherit it.

[kentuck]

22. Yes, you are correct with your timeline.

"So, unemployment should fall under 10 percent in 2010..."

I don't know that we can look at past recoveries and expect this one to act in a similar manner.

[TomCADem]

23. True, While Obama Is Trying To Catch A Falling Knife, Reagan Dropped The Knife In The 1st Place

That is the crucial difference between the two men. Also, this recession is deeper on a systemic level.

[FBaggins]

30. A correction

Unemployment from 1980 (Carter's last year) through 1981 had held steady at around 7 percent until October 1981

Unemployment from 5.7% to 7.8% from mid 1979 to mid 1980... then paused before heading higher.

If you look at unemployment, it was rapidly heading down in the fourth quarter of 2008.

You either mean "employment"... or "up", right?

It's also useful to remember that "the economy" at the time (as a political issue) meant employment AND inflation.

[GreenTea]

28. Republican corporate Reagan had the banks, the corporations, big time money and

even the democrats were behind Reagan when it came to unemployment, in order to help make sure unemployment fell quickly....because anti-union Reagan indeed had the banks, the corporations & big time money they all wanted his re-election the following year together they helped and unemployment fell...

Obama doesn't have the banks, the corporations, big time money behind him the same way Reagan did, nor does Obama have the opposing party (republicans) as Reagan did (democrats) wanting to see unemployment drop.

All Obama has is a bankrupt federal government, which is constantly being attacked by the republican media and the republicans themselves.

Reagan's federal government was nowhere near bankrupt as it is now thanks to eight years of republicans & Bush's big government, (which is big obstacle for Obama) until Reagan left office in 1989 when the deficit had by then exploded because of the usual republicans big government for their republican uses. .

The republicans and the corporations care nothing about the workers or America, only getting power back so they can control the workers, destroy unions deregulate corporations, steal money to corporatize & militarize this country with multi-national corporations and the military being their enforcer domestically & world wide...imperialism and republican ideology = 100% Corporatism (privatization)for America.

[Bucky]

37. Facts here - unemployment rates by president

Year - unemployment rate - President

1960 - 5.5 - Eisenhower

1961 - 5.5 - Kennedy (eight years of Democratic presidents will result in a 1.9% net drop in unemployment)
1962 - 6.7
1963 - 5.5
1964 - 5.7 - Johnson
1965 - 5.2
1966 - 4.5
1967 - 3.8
1968 - 3.8

1969 - 3.6 - Nixon (eight years of Republican presidents will result in a 4.1% net rise in unemployment)
1970 - 3.5
1971 - 4.9
1972 - 5.9
1973 - 5.6
1974 - 4.9 - Ford
1975 - 5.6
1976 - 8.5

1977 - 7.7 - Carter (four years of a Democratic president will result in a 0.6% net drop in unemployment)
1978 - 7.1
1979 - 6.1
1980 - 5.8

1981 - 7.1 - Reagan (twelve years of Republican presidents will result in a 0.4% net rise in unemployment)
1982 - 7.6
1983 - 9.7 <== - (another record setting moment by the Gipper)
1984 - 9.6
1985 - 7.5
1986 - 7.2
1987 - 7.0 - (note what happens after Dems take over Congress)
1988 - 6.2
1989 - 5.5 - Poppy
1990 - 5.3
1991 - 5.6
1992 - 6.8

1993 - 7.5 - Clinton (eight years of Democratic presidents will result in a 2.8% net drop in unemployment)
1994 - 6.9
1995 - 6.1
1996 - 5.6
1997 - 5.4
1998 - 4.9
1999 - 4.5
2000 - 4.0

2001 - 4.7 - Trainwreck McGee (eight years of Republican presidents will result in a 2.9% net rise in unemployment)
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - 5.1
2006 - 4.6
2007 - 4.6
2008 - 5.8

2009 - 7.6 - Obama (insert your predictions on how he'll end up affecting the unemployment rate based on past trends)

[kentuck]

38. I distinctly remember rate being over 10% under Reagan.

But your chart does not show it??

[Bucky]

39. It might've hit 10% during the year, but these are year long averages.

I remember also that it was under Reagan when the Department of Labor first started playing games, like de-listing discouraged workers from the unemployed rolls because, since their benefits ran out, they must not actually be part of the work force any more. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[FBaggins]

40. Yep

It was over 10% from Sep '82 to June '83