17 months is all it took

[Luddly Neddite]

More facts for the rw's to ignore.

Ethics in Government

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[ilia25]

Reagan was allowed to triple the debt to force a recovery. He did not have to contend with massive layoffs in the public sector while he was trying to cut the unemployment rate

Ummm unemployment was 7.8% when Reagan took office, it balooned to 10.8%, higher than Obama's. He also had to deal with a 13% inflation rate. Obama's was zero.

Obama had no clue what to do, he still doesn't. Oh and didn't Obama alos increase the debt by a bunch???

Obama's policies have failed.

Again, Reagan's recession was artificially created by the Fed to bring down inflation. Once that goal was accomplished, the Fed eased its policy and the economy bounced back.

In 2008 the economy went into a tailspin when the Fed already had spent all its ammo by lowering the interest rates to zero. Obama had to improvise with stimulus, which is not as effective as monetary easing.

Obama was on his own, Reagan could simply watch the Fed fixing the economy for him.

 

[naturegirl]

Obama is a failed president that doesn't have a clue. They are force feeding their party with lie after lie and Bill Clinton stood up there last night, repeated the lies and added a few more.

The party of lies and deception.

Wake up people, you are fools being led to slaughter.

 

[naturegirl]

Reagan was allowed to triple the debt to force a recovery. He did not have to contend with massive layoffs in the public sector while he was trying to cut the unemployment rate

Ummm unemployment was 7.8% when Reagan took office, it balooned to 10.8%, higher than Obama's. He also had to deal with a 13% inflation rate. Obama's was zero.

Obama had no clue what to do, he still doesn't. Oh and didn't Obama alos increase the debt by a bunch???

Obama's policies have failed.

Again, Reagan's recession was artificially created by the Fed to bring down inflation. Once that goal was accomplished, the Fed eased its policy and the economy bounced back.

In 2008 the economy went into a tailspin when the Fed already had spent all its ammo by lowering the interest rates to zero. Obama had to improvise with stimulus, which is not as effective as monetary easing.

Obama was on his own, Reagan could simply watch the Fed fixing the economy for him.

I keep asking for a link, do you have one??

 

[Meister]

More facts for the rw's to ignore.

Ethics in Government

You're kinda getting off the topic with this, but I'll go with it. Remember how many tax cheats Obama's administration was dealing with? I know, that's okay because they're democrats

 

[auditor0007]

It took Reagan 17 months to straighten out Jimmy Carter's mess he left. Unemployment actually rose during the first months of his presidency to over 10% (sound familiar?) Inflation jumped to 13.5%

Bill Clinton lied last night saying no other president faced what Obama was facing. Reagan's was just as bad if not worse.

When Reagan took office the economy was one of the double-digit inflation and high interest rates. During the campaign Reagan promised to restore the free market from excessive government regulation and encourage private initiative and enterprise.

Reagan's economic policies came to be known as "Reaganomics," an attempt, according to Lou Cannon, to "balance the federal budget, increase defense spending, and cut income taxes." The President vowed to protect entitlement programs (such as Medicare and Social Security) while cutting the outlays for social programs by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse." Reagan embraced the theory of "supply side economics," which postulated that tax cuts encouraged economic expansion which in turn increased the government's revenue at a lower tax rate.

During his first year in office, Reagan engineered the passage of $39 billion in budget cuts into law, as well as a massive 25 percent tax cut spread over three years for individual, and faster write-offs for capital investment for business. At the same time, he insisted on, and for the most part, was successful in gaining increased funding for defense.

Although inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 5.1% in 1982, a severe recession set in, with unemployment exceeding 10% in October, 1982 for the first time in forty years. The administration modified its economic policy after two years by proposing selected tax increases and budget cuts to control rising deficits and higher interest rates. After the 1982 downturn, the reduced inflation rate (under 5% for the remainder of the administration) sparked record economic growth, and produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in modern U.S. history (unemployment hit a 14 year low in June of 1988). As Reagan left office, the nation was experiencing its sixth consecutive year of economic prosperity.

The economic gains, however, came at a cost of a record annual deficit and a ballooning national debt. The budget deficit was exacerbated by a trade deficit. Americans continued to buy more foreign-made goods than they were selling. Reagan, however adhered to his free trade stance, and signed an agreement to that effect with Canada. He also signed, reluctantly, trade legislation designed to open foreign markets to U.S. goods.

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's look at the actual numbers here and compare them to Obama's numbers. In January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Over the following two years it jumped to 10.4% By October of 1984, during the final stretch of the election, unemployment was only down to 7.4%, so basically, it hadn't budged during Reagan's first term. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really started to improve. These are the facts.

Now let's look at Obama. When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6% and the economy was in a tailspin. By the end of the year we had already surpassed 10% unemployment. That rate has steadily come down, but it has not come down fast, just as it did not come down fast for Reagan. The difference is in perception. In 1984, voters thought Reagan was doing a good job, and he rolled to re-election despite the fact that he hadn't really done anything to improve the economy. Compare that to Obama who while pretty much achieving the same results as Reagan in his first three and a half years, has been crucified for his handling of the economy. It's actually a bit humorous when you compare the two scenarios.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Reagan was allowed to triple the debt to force a recovery. He did not have to contend with massive layoffs in the public sector while he was trying to cut the unemployment rate

Ummm unemployment was 7.8% when Reagan took office, it balooned to 10.8%, higher than Obama's. He also had to deal with a 13% inflation rate. Obama's was zero.

Obama had no clue what to do, he still doesn't. Oh and didn't Obama alos increase the debt by a bunch???

Obama's policies have failed.

Again, Reagan's recession was artificially created by the Fed to bring down inflation. Once that goal was accomplished, the Fed eased its policy and the economy bounced back.

In 2008 the economy went into a tailspin when the Fed already had spent all its ammo by lowering the interest rates to zero. Obama had to improvise with stimulus, which is not as effective as monetary easing.

Obama was on his own, Reagan could simply watch the Fed fixing the economy for him.

OMG liberals are crazy as hell, now they meant for it to happen......I love this, you guys will believe anything a guy with a D next to his name will say. Now atleast we know the kind of people Jim Jones recruited to take the kool aid.

 

[naturegirl]

More facts for the rw's to ignore.

Ethics in Government

This has exactly what to do with the failed policies of the Obama administration that are stalling the recovery??

 

[ilia25]

Reagan was allowed to triple the debt to force a recovery. He did not have to contend with massive layoffs in the public sector while he was trying to cut the unemployment rate

Would you give a monetary amount (including inflation) that Reagan spent over his 8 years and compare that to what Obama has spent in 3+ years?
I'll be waiting, Leftwinger.

Exactly -- why don't you find out how the spending grew under Reagan vs Obama? You'd be surprised.

 

[Full-Auto]

More facts for the rw's to ignore.

Ethics in Government

How about the facts you ignore low life.

Like over 2000 felonies committed with fast and furious, add personal involved and mutiply by two thousand.

We could also bring up This admin denying rights to some Americans all in the hope they will volunteer to have their purchases recorded....

We will leave the 16 bankrupt green energy companies for another ethics lesson.....

 

[naturegirl]

It took Reagan 17 months to straighten out Jimmy Carter's mess he left. Unemployment actually rose during the first months of his presidency to over 10% (sound familiar?) Inflation jumped to 13.5%

Bill Clinton lied last night saying no other president faced what Obama was facing. Reagan's was just as bad if not worse.

When Reagan took office the economy was one of the double-digit inflation and high interest rates. During the campaign Reagan promised to restore the free market from excessive government regulation and encourage private initiative and enterprise.

Reagan's economic policies came to be known as "Reaganomics," an attempt, according to Lou Cannon, to "balance the federal budget, increase defense spending, and cut income taxes." The President vowed to protect entitlement programs (such as Medicare and Social Security) while cutting the outlays for social programs by targeting "waste, fraud and abuse." Reagan embraced the theory of "supply side economics," which postulated that tax cuts encouraged economic expansion which in turn increased the government's revenue at a lower tax rate.

During his first year in office, Reagan engineered the passage of $39 billion in budget cuts into law, as well as a massive 25 percent tax cut spread over three years for individual, and faster write-offs for capital investment for business. At the same time, he insisted on, and for the most part, was successful in gaining increased funding for defense.

Although inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 5.1% in 1982, a severe recession set in, with unemployment exceeding 10% in October, 1982 for the first time in forty years. The administration modified its economic policy after two years by proposing selected tax increases and budget cuts to control rising deficits and higher interest rates. After the 1982 downturn, the reduced inflation rate (under 5% for the remainder of the administration) sparked record economic growth, and produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in modern U.S. history (unemployment hit a 14 year low in June of 1988). As Reagan left office, the nation was experiencing its sixth consecutive year of economic prosperity.

The economic gains, however, came at a cost of a record annual deficit and a ballooning national debt. The budget deficit was exacerbated by a trade deficit. Americans continued to buy more foreign-made goods than they were selling. Reagan, however adhered to his free trade stance, and signed an agreement to that effect with Canada. He also signed, reluctantly, trade legislation designed to open foreign markets to U.S. goods.

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's look at the actual numbers here and compare them to Obama's numbers. In January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Over the following two years it jumped to 10.4% By October of 1984, during the final stretch of the election, unemployment was only down to 7.4%, so basically, it hadn't budged during Reagan's first term. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really started to improve. These are the facts.

Now let's look at Obama. When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6% and the economy was in a tailspin. By the end of the year we had already surpassed 10% unemployment. That rate has steadily come down, but it has not come down fast, just as it did not come down fast for Reagan. The difference is in perception. In 1984, voters thought Reagan was doing a good job, and he rolled to re-election despite the fact that he hadn't really done anything to improve the economy. Compare that to Obama who while pretty much achieving the same results as Reagan in his first three and a half years, has been crucified for his handling of the economy. It's actually a bit humorous when you compare the two scenarios.

So Reagan did in less than 2 years what Obama hasn't done in four and we're just supposed to give Obama a pass?? You fail to mention runaway inflation Obama didn't have to deal with.

 

[g5000]

Let's look at the actual numbers here and compare them to Obama's numbers. In January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Over the following two years it jumped to 10.4% By October of 1984, during the final stretch of the election, unemployment was only down to 7.4%, so basically, it hadn't budged during Reagan's first term. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really started to improve. These are the facts.

Now let's look at Obama. When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6% and the economy was in a tailspin. By the end of the year we had already surpassed 10% unemployment. That rate has steadily come down, but it has not come down fast, just as it did not come down fast for Reagan. The difference is in perception. In 1984, voters thought Reagan was doing a good job, and he rolled to re-election despite the fact that he hadn't really done anything to improve the economy. Compare that to Obama who while pretty much achieving the same results as Reagan in his first three and a half years, has been crucified for his handling of the economy. It's actually a bit humorous when you compare the two scenarios.

The difference is that unemployment was on a definite downward trend in 1984.

Unemployment under Obama has been flatlined for a long time. The downward trend is not there.



.

 

[Meister]

It took Reagan 17 months to straighten out Jimmy Carter's mess he left. Unemployment actually rose during the first months of his presidency to over 10% (sound familiar?) Inflation jumped to 13.5%

Bill Clinton lied last night saying no other president faced what Obama was facing. Reagan's was just as bad if not worse.



Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's look at the actual numbers here and compare them to Obama's numbers. In January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Over the following two years it jumped to 10.4% By October of 1984, during the final stretch of the election, unemployment was only down to 7.4%, so basically, it hadn't budged during Reagan's first term. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really started to improve. These are the facts.

Now let's look at Obama. When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6% and the economy was in a tailspin. By the end of the year we had already surpassed 10% unemployment. That rate has steadily come down, but it has not come down fast, just as it did not come down fast for Reagan. The difference is in perception. In 1984, voters thought Reagan was doing a good job, and he rolled to re-election despite the fact that he hadn't really done anything to improve the economy. Compare that to Obama who while pretty much achieving the same results as Reagan in his first three and a half years, has been crucified for his handling of the economy. It's actually a bit humorous when you compare the two scenarios.

So Reagan did in less than 2 years what Obama hasn't done in four and we're just supposed to give Obama a pass?? You fail to mention runaway inflation Obama didn't have to deal with.

I think you can honestly bring up the fact that Reagan had the economy going in the right direction for a full recovery. Obama's economy is anemic and there are a lot of economists saying that it's going in the wrong direction. I think this is where the rubber meets the road with these two presidents.

 

[ilia25]

Ummm unemployment was 7.8% when Reagan took office, it balooned to 10.8%, higher than Obama's. He also had to deal with a 13% inflation rate. Obama's was zero.

Obama had no clue what to do, he still doesn't. Oh and didn't Obama alos increase the debt by a bunch???

Obama's policies have failed.

Again, Reagan's recession was artificially created by the Fed to bring down inflation. Once that goal was accomplished, the Fed eased its policy and the economy bounced back.

In 2008 the economy went into a tailspin when the Fed already had spent all its ammo by lowering the interest rates to zero. Obama had to improvise with stimulus, which is not as effective as monetary easing.

Obama was on his own, Reagan could simply watch the Fed fixing the economy for him.

I keep asking for a link, do you have one??

This is how Fed created the Reagan's recession (by rising rates to 20%), and how it stopped it (by lowering them to 10%):

This is why the standard monetary policy was powerless in 2008 -- Fed started with much less room to lower the rates:

In 80's all the Fed HAD to do is lowering rates from 20% to 10%. In 2008 all the Fed COULD do is lowering rates from 5% to 0%, and that was not nearly enough for the economy to recover.

 

[naturegirl]

So are you saying Reagan's policies had nothing to do with his recovery and Obama's policies are helping this recession??

 

[g5000]

Again, Reagan's recession was artificially created by the Fed to bring down inflation. Once that goal was accomplished, the Fed eased its policy and the economy bounced back.

In 2008 the economy went into a tailspin when the Fed already had spent all its ammo by lowering the interest rates to zero. Obama had to improvise with stimulus, which is not as effective as monetary easing.

Obama was on his own, Reagan could simply watch the Fed fixing the economy for him.

I keep asking for a link, do you have one??

This is how Fed created the Reagan's recession (by rising rates to 20%), and how it stopped it (by lowering them to 10%):

This is why the standard monetary policy was powerless in 2008 -- Fed started with much less room to lower the rates:

In 80's all the Fed HAD to do is lowering rates from 20% to 10%. In 2008 all the Fed COULD do is lowering rates from 5% to 0%, and that was not nearly enough for the economy to recover.

Ilia, you have it all ass backwards.

In October 1979, Volker radically changed Fed policy by allowing interest rates to float. To understand why he did this, it is necessary to understand what preceded this action.

In 1971, Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold.

Since the dollar was no longer pegged to gold, how did we keep the dollar a strong currency?

Well, we didn't. Congress fucked it all up.

You see, the Fed controlled the monetary supply, sort of. But the money supply was actually controlled by targets set by Congress. And Congress set targets that were political goals rather than sound fiscal goals.

So the Fed actually controlled only the federal funds rate. And it kept the federal funds rate rock steady.

But because Congress was printing money like there was no tomorrow, inflation began skyrocketing.

So Volker decided to use what power he had and stopped keeping the federal funds rate steady. He floated interest rates. This was an historical moment in financial history.

And thus the bond market went from a boring career for losers into the hotbed of activity it is today.

Rather then lowering the federal funds rate as you claimed, Volker raised it by 400 basis points to get inflation under control. And this led to a recession and high unemployment in January 1980. Which, of course, really pissed off Congress.

The fed funds flucuated wildly for while, leading to a second recession in 1981. Which pissed off Congress even more. It is hard to get re-elected when your constituents are unemployed.

But this had to be done to save the economy in the long run.

Volker's pllan ultimately worked to get inflation under control.

What Reagan gets credit for is that he was under tremendous pressure from Congress to return to the days of when Congress got to set the money supply. Congress had a crack monkey on its back and was demanding a fix. Reagan resisted this pressure and continued Volker's policy of floating interest rates. And he was proven correct in this policy.

It is for precisely this reason that idiots who want to "End the Fed" and return monetary control back to Congress are completely wrong. We would quickly return to the stagflation madness of the 70s.

With unemployment stuck at 8 percent, Congress would begin printing money like there was no tomorrow all over again. Much more than what the Fed has already printed.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is retarded.

The Reagan recession started 6 months AFTER Reagan took office. It ended in November 1982.

 

[naturegirl]

The OP is retarded.

The Reagan recession started 6 months AFTER Reagan took office. It ended in November 1982.

Good Lord, you are not allowed to rewrite history. Carter damaged this country horribly, Reagan fixed it.

Will Obama's presidency say the recession started after he took office??

That post was retarded.

 

[ilia25]

So are you saying Reagan's policies had nothing to do with his recovery and Obama's policies are helping this recession??

Yes, Reagan's recession and recovery were engineered by the Fed and the Fed only. Obama was on his own.