Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Obama beats Reagan on the pace of job recovery by a year...From a deeper recession..."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 11:57 PM
Original message
"Obama beats Reagan on the pace of job recovery by a year...From a deeper recession..."
Edited on Tue Jul-20-10 05:48 PM by proud patriot
edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground

'Mano a Mano': Obama's Job Recovery Beats Reagan's...By 1 Year!

Democrats are withering under an endless barrage of rightwing attacks on jobs. Everything--stimulus, deficits, rising taxes on the wealthy--is mixed in a heated cauldron of rhetoric, lies, innuendo. The point is not to make a point. It is to keep the cauldron stirring until it bubbles over. The media inhales the fumes for cheap, high ratings.

And, the Democrats, feckless as ever in their inability to respond, cannot even find even a cup of cold water to pour on it.

Switching metaphors, the Democrats need to provide a psychological anchor that people can latch onto, so they do not feel they are just being tossed about on stormy seas. They need to diffuse the anger the Republicans delight in ginning up--they are very good at it. The Republicans are so good at provoking anger, that they can argue, with a straight face, that the policies that were in place when the Bush/Cheney economic disaster struck are what we should be doing again.

-snip-
Let us face it, neither Reagan nor Obama had a prayer of restoring the economy in 21 months from the depths of the recessions they inherited. But, we can ask this: under whose policies did job growth start to rise earlier?
To find out compare Reagan's record on jobs to President Obama's, mano a mano, at the same point in their Presidencies. How could the rightwing shrink from that contest?

Under Ronald Reagan, unemployment did not begin to tick down until summer-1983--that is summer 2011 in Obama-time. Under President Obama, who inherited a much worse recession than Reagan, jobs are slowly being added, and unemployment is beginning to tick down in 2010--1982 in Reagan-time when unemployment was still climbing.

.


*Reagan's January 1983 approval rating = 35%. That's January, 2011 in Obama-time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/mano-a-mano-obamas-job-re_b_650660.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Reagan didn't actually inherit his recession
it started after he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Yep. Job hunting under Reagan was always ugly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. The obvious comeback will be that at the time Reagan's "recovery" was
facing 16% interest rates and 6% inflation, which makes job creation very difficult.

The two situations are so different I think it's pointless to compare them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It is a talking point for the people who absorb and make decisions based on those.
Let them get into a more lengthy explanation. The point is to have something to use against Republicans in the sound bite war which they excel at and we suck at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. The republicans get a LOT of mileage out of pointless comparisons.
If it works, why can't we do it too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Do we REALLY want to be like them? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Well, they seem to get everything they want.
We seem to get nothing. Is this acceptable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. Reagan recession, like Bush's, began after he was in office and it wasn't as deep
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 12:25 AM by uponit7771
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. Most of the unemployed weren't born under Reagan
It is a stupid argument considering the hardest hit by unemployment right now are those under 30--people who remember Reagan as well as they do Herbert Hoover.

In other words, it's ANCIENT history and irrelevant. Obama would do far better to just keep hammering on how much better it is compared to Shrub, and do you want go back there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Isn't it a bit insulting to them to indicate they have no knowledge of
history whatsoever?

I wasn't born by the time of the Depression, but I do understand it was worse than anything I've ever lived through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's not really a valid comparison..
since there have been changes to the way unemployment is calculated and this was a census year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Why are you defending Reagan?
After all, it was his labor department that changed the way the number of unemployed were calculated. And what in the world does the census have to do with anything? The census is over and the number of unemployed has remained stable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. How was this a defense of Reagan?
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 10:42 AM by girl gone mad
I'm simply stating that the article is premised on bad analysis.

I was referring to the change that happened under Clinton, when the BLS revised the CPS and U5 became U3. The OP is comparing two different statistics.

In point of fact, now that the census is over, employment is trending back down.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-02/payrolls-in-u-s-probably-dropped-in-june-as-government-cut-census-workers.html

Employment fell in June for the first time this year, reflecting a drop in federal census workers as the decennial population count began to wind down, economists said before a report today.

The pace of hiring signals it will take years for the world’s largest economy to recover the more than 8 million jobs lost during the recession that began in December 2007. The turmoil in financial markets brought on by the European debt crisis raises the risk that employment will slow, depriving American households of the income needed to maintain spending.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. It should also be noted that under Reagan, unemployment reached 10.8% ...
... while under Obama it never rose above 10.3%. And Reagan was the record deficit spender for his time, just like Obama. And Reagan deficit spent primarily to help the wealthy and the military industrial complex, while Obama deficit spent primarily to help the unemployed and others affected by the economic crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I think this thread helps explain why and how much Dems suck at the sound bite wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. No kidding ...
The idea in the OP is a good one ... while the responses to it ... well, pedantic.

You can see the Dems on TV make the same exact mistake. The GOP strategist will ignore the question that was asked and then repeat the GOP talking points. When the Dem strategist responds, they spend half the response by agreeing with part of what the GOP strategist said, then they babble some complex nonsense, and then run out of time.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Agreed. You got Democrats now running squared against extending unemployment benefits...
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 07:12 AM by Liberal_Stalwart71
Why? Because they've cowardly ceded to the argument to Republicans...

WE GOT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET!!

Excuse me, but where the fuck were you when Bush was spending like crazy! UGH!! It makes me so freaking sick when I hear these cowardly DemoCRAPS talk that bullshit about the deficit.

Deficit spending is just fine when Reagan and Cheney deem it so. But once you get a Democratic president? Oh, NOOOO... we got to address the deficit! It's such bullshit!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. 9 of the Last 10 Recessions Have Occured Under Republican Leadership
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 07:42 AM by mikekohr
A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008


Criminologists look for patterns to solve and prevent crimes. And in the comparison of the economic records of Democrat and Republican administrations there is a glaring pattern all but ignored by the corporate media. Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy. And proving that history does repeat itself, examine the three greatest slowdowns in US economic history, 1929*, 1982, 2007, all three were attributed to poor economic and tight credit policy, all three featured deregulation and lack of oversight of the financial markets, and all three were presided over by a Republican President.

Recession of 2007-present George W. Bush(R) Greatest downturn since 1929, blamed on lack of regulation of financial markets and collapse of credit markets

Recession of 2001 George W. Bush(R) Began in April of 2001, marked the beginning of greatest deficit spending in all of recorded human history

Recession of 1990-1991 George H.W. Bush(R) Deregulation of Savings and Loan industry led to a collapse and panic, which led to election of Bill Clinton, who produced the greatest increase in jobs and wealth in all of recorded human history

Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan(R) At the time, the most severe contraction of economy since the Great Depression, massive deficit spending/deregulation of markets, and tight fiscal policy in an effort to kill inflation were blamed for this downturn **

Recession of 1980 2nd & 3rd quarters Jimmy Carter (D) Shortest and least severe slow down, generally attributed to Iranian Revolution and increase in oil prices, led to the election of Ronald Reagan

Recession of 1973-1975 Richard M Nixon(R) OPEC’s increase in oil prices and massive spending in the escalation of war in Vietnam led to stagflation, the second economic crash of Nixon’s administration

Recession of 1969-1970 Richard M. Nixon(R) Credited to Nixon’s escalation of and massive spending in Vietnam War and OPEC’s increase in price of oil

Recession of 1960 -1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Noted for high unemployment, low GDP, high inflation JFK ended the recession by stimulating the economy 10 days after taking office

Recession of 1957-1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Eisenhower achieved the dubious distinction of achieving a second economic downturn on his watch, a record later matched by Richard M. Nixon, and George W. Bush

Recession of 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R) Increased outlays to National defense and restrictive credit policies blamed for this downturn.

There are few things that are certain in life but this economic record of the last 58 years provides one. When a Republican is elected to the White House, there is a 100% chance that the economy will slide into a recession and a 50% chance that two or more recessions will occur.

With an unbroken record of fubar, failure and foul up one would expect Republicans to have a (FU) after their names instead of a (R). A (no) would be more appropriate. Not a single Republican member of Congress voted for President Obama’s 2009 Economic Stimulus plan. The “Know Nothing” Republican Party has a long history of saying no. They said no to the creation of the Social Security System, and the creation of Medicare, the two most successful poverty reduction programs in US history. That’s not all they said no to.

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history. Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets, exactly 5 times as many balanced budgets as produced by the last five Republican presidents -combined-.
Not a single Republican House member voted for it.

Here’s what they had to say about Clinton’s Stimulus plan of 1993:
From the Files by David Waldman
(Congress Matters, February 15, 2009)

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
“Clearly this is a job killer in the short run…The deficit will be worse,...”

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
“I believe this will lead to a recession next year.”

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93:
“(This) will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.”

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93:
"It will not create jobs."

This from the same know nothing crowd that gave us 9 of the last 10 recessions.

There has been a crime of economic ineptitude perpetrated on the American people. No one seems to see the pattern nor is anyone confronting the stumblebums responsible for it. And they are so easy to spot. They are the one’s saying no.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Great Depression of 1929 Herbert Hoover(R) Lasted for 10 years, blamed on Hoover’s economic policy and lack of regulation of financial markets
** “The Reagan Recession” which ran from the 4th quarter of 1981 thru the 1st quarter of 1982 is often categorized as starting under Carter’s watch during the 2nd & 3rd quarters of 1980. By the end of the 3rd quarter of 1980 that brief recession had rebounded. Starting in the 4th quarter of 1980, 3 of the next 4 quarters produced increased GDP. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 20.5%

http://recession.org/history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reces ...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec198 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_hist ...


Written by: mike kohr 2/12/2008
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html
Bureau County Democrats






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. That's a great compilation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. You're comparing two different data points.
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 10:40 AM by girl gone mad
U5 was the measure representing the official unemployment rate back when Reagan was President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
15. if the current job recovery
wasn't so weak it would sure help the narrative. The problem is people don't really see it happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. That's because it isn't happening. Even with interest rates at basically zero
businesses are not borrowing or expanding, thus, no hiring.

The problem must be addressed: WHY aren't businesses borrowing or expanding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Not enough demand mostly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC