FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[Listening]

Never claimed YOU were a fan of his, but like MOST 'independent conservatives', you voted for him, twice right? lol

POINTING OUT DUBYA'S FAILURES DOESN'T TAKE YOU BEING A FAN OF HIS, JUST RECOGNIZING FACTUAL DATA AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED!

If you take ADD meds, they are not working.

You sniped that I couldn't refute the FACTS on GWB's failures.

Somehow you assume I want to....which I don't (first mistake).

At the same time, I still get tired of you bullshit spam on Obama and others with the Alinksy type effort to keep repeating some of this crap (even when it's been show to be contextually horsecrap) in the hope's we'll eventually embrace it.

Facts don't mean anything unless somebody sums them up and draws a conclusion.

Most of your conclusions are dead wrong.

PLEASE just ONE where it's 'contextually horsecrap'

PRETTY PLEASE? Just one?

You've already been provided with several.

First: Carter vs. Reagan. Jobs creation isn't all there is to the equation. Sorry. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide while Carter got tossed on his ass.

Second: Reagan's debt. It wasn't crippling. Far from it. The foundation Reagan provided allowed Clinton to almost completely eliminate the debt. It wasn't fatal. Unlike the near lethal debt Obama is creating (and yes....we know some of it belongs to Bush). Obama and congressional democrats seem all to unwilling to discuss True cost controls.

Etc.
Etc.

Now, I've answered you question. Don't like it...start another thread.

You've derailed this one for way to long.

 

[Dad2three]

If you take ADD meds, they are not working.

You sniped that I couldn't refute the FACTS on GWB's failures.

Somehow you assume I want to....which I don't (first mistake).

At the same time, I still get tired of you bullshit spam on Obama and others with the Alinksy type effort to keep repeating some of this crap (even when it's been show to be contextually horsecrap) in the hope's we'll eventually embrace it.

Facts don't mean anything unless somebody sums them up and draws a conclusion.

Most of your conclusions are dead wrong.

PLEASE just ONE where it's 'contextually horsecrap'

PRETTY PLEASE? Just one?

You've already been provided with several.

First: Carter vs. Reagan. Jobs creation isn't all there is to the equation. Sorry. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide while Carter got tossed on his ass.

Second: Reagan's debt. It wasn't crippling. Far from it. The foundation Reagan provided allowed Clinton to almost completely eliminate the debt. It wasn't fatal. Unlike the near lethal debt Obama is creating (and yes....we know some of it belongs to Bush). Obama and congressional democrats seem all to unwilling to discuss True cost controls.

Etc.
Etc.

Now, I've answered you question. Don't like it...start another thread.

You've derailed this one for way to long.

"First: Carter vs. Reagan. Jobs creation isn't all there is to the equation. Sorry. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide while Carter got tossed on his ass."

OH A FALSE PREMISE. All I said was Carter had 9+ million jobs in 4 years IF Ronnie's 'trickle down' worked, why only 14 million in 8 years? lol



"Second: Reagan's debt. It wasn't crippling. Far from it. The foundation Reagan provided allowed Clinton to almost completely eliminate the debt."

MORE FALSE PREMISES. Lol

Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote

AFTER CLINTON'S FIRST SURPLUS THE GOP PASSED A $700+ BILLION TAX CUT HE HAD TO VETO TO GET 3 MORE. THEN DUBYA CAME ALONG


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

 

[Dad2three]

November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

 

[Listening]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

This thread is about Bush's recession as if to prove Bush's liberalism did ot work.

 

[Dad2three]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

This thread is about Bush's recession as if to prove Bush's liberalism did ot work.

Sure, it's NOT about Dubya ignoring regulator warnings and like Reagan did with his S&L crisis, 'believing in' the markets to self correct, lol

Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Listening]

A study from Cal-Berkely.

That should be good.

If anyone reads it, let me know.

 

[Dad2three]

A study from Cal-Berkely.

That should be good.

If anyone reads it, let me know.

So you CAN'T refute it. Thanks

 

[Faun]

Never claimed YOU were a fan of his, but like MOST 'independent conservatives', you voted for him, twice right? lol

POINTING OUT DUBYA'S FAILURES DOESN'T TAKE YOU BEING A FAN OF HIS, JUST RECOGNIZING FACTUAL DATA AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED!

If you take ADD meds, they are not working.

You sniped that I couldn't refute the FACTS on GWB's failures.

Somehow you assume I want to....which I don't (first mistake).

At the same time, I still get tired of you bullshit spam on Obama and others with the Alinksy type effort to keep repeating some of this crap (even when it's been show to be contextually horsecrap) in the hope's we'll eventually embrace it.

Facts don't mean anything unless somebody sums them up and draws a conclusion.

Most of your conclusions are dead wrong.

PLEASE just ONE where it's 'contextually horsecrap'

PRETTY PLEASE? Just one?

You've already been provided with several.

First: Carter vs. Reagan. Jobs creation isn't all there is to the equation. Sorry. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide while Carter got tossed on his ass.

Second: Reagan's debt. It wasn't crippling. Far from it. The foundation Reagan provided allowed Clinton to almost completely eliminate the debt. It wasn't fatal. Unlike the near lethal debt Obama is creating (and yes....we know some of it belongs to Bush). Obama and congressional democrats seem all to unwilling to discuss True cost controls.

Etc.
Etc.

Now, I've answered you question. Don't like it...start another thread.

You've derailed this one for way to long.

I guess one way to convince yourself you're winning an argument is just make shit up.

 

[Faun]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

 

[Listening]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

 

[Dad2three]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

Yes, gutting revenues as Reagan did AND increasing spending tends to make you popular, UNTIL it pops just like Dubya's economy, Reagan was blamed for the 1990's Poppy Bush recession


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Of course that could've been a reaction to Reagan's most corrupt administration EVER or perhaps his lying about Iran Contra and funding terrorists!

 

[Faun]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

yes but what on earth could a liberal like Obama do to help the economy. If its getting better its despite Obama. So dear, tell us what a liberal could do to help an economy?

 

[Dad2three]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

yes but what on earth could a liberal like Obama do to help the economy. If its getting better its despite Obama. So dear, tell us what a liberal could do to help an economy?

Weird you have zero critical thinking abilities AND no ability to see how Obama, slowly but surely, has pulled US out of the hole Dubya/GOP dug, AS the GOP and you Klowns fought him every step of the way...

 

[Listening]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

 

[Dad2three]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

EVERY serious economists says Obama had it MUCH worse AND an opposing party unwilling to work with him, unlike Ronnie....

 

[boedicca]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

Hey! Don't you know that all of those people on Unemployment and SS Disability due to Obamanomics are actually Stimulating The Economy?

Sheesh.

 

[Dad2three]

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

Hey! Don't you know that all of those people on Unemployment and SS Disability due to Obamanomics are actually Stimulating The Economy?

Sheesh.

Weird you forget it was Bushonomics that did that. Obamanomics has created over 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

 

[boedicca]

My "source" is the BLS. And unlike Obama, Reagan wasn't handed the worst economy since the Great Depession, where we lost a million jobs in a single month. Nor was Reagan president when baby boomers hit the age of retirement.

Despite that, and despite starting off with an unemployment rate lower than the rate Obama started with, after 66 months in office, the unemployment rate was still 7.0%. Under Obama, it's 6.2%

Yeah, interest rates when Obama were just awful when he took over.

Reagan had it easy there.

I love the meme that Obama had it worse.

EVERY serious economists says Obama had it MUCH worse AND an opposing party unwilling to work with him, unlike Ronnie....

EVERYTHING YOU POSIT IS JUST CRAP. PURE CRAP!


BTW, MY THREAD YOU ARE ON BUBBA, TALKING ABOUT DUBYA'S RECESSION

Sorry buttnugget, but you can't just seem to get past your own bias when reading posts.

Clinton threw the far left under the bus and got smart.

After he got past gays in the military, and Hillarycare.

He had an economy that allowed him to do what he did. Reagan presided over a great economic expansion. Pure and simple.

Yet at this same point in Reagan's term ... President for 66 months ... the unemployment rate had fallen only one half of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.0%. Under Obama's first 66 months, it's fallen 1.6 points, from 7.8% to 6.2%.

Wow....must have missed that ! Not.....

But this is from a source similar to yours.....except this writer points out a necessary component of consideration (which the left and duddy seem to forget.....).

The labor force participation rate also started at a lower base when President Reagan first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Reagan’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate increased a meagre 400 basis points. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing 1.6 percentage points, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.


Again, employment statistics are the result of a myriad of complex factors. I will leave it to my readers to determine why there was such a pronounced difference in employment statistics during the first two and a half years of each respective administration.

Reagan vs. Obama Unemployment Reflections of a Rational Republican

I'll point out that Reagan was re-elected big time without really campaigning. And, as I recall, there was a great deal of optimism about the economy (and much of it justified) at the time.

There was a lot of optimism in 2012 too.....

Hey! Don't you know that all of those people on Unemployment and SS Disability due to Obamanomics are actually Stimulating The Economy?

Sheesh.

Weird you forget it was Bushonomics that did that. Obamanomics has created over 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

That's a lie, as anyone who can run a report on BLS.gov can tell you. The economy is always creating some jobs while others are destroyed. The problem with Obamanomics is that it is barely creating enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. If we'd had a proper recovery, job creation would have been double what it actually was.

And, a bunch of part time jobs (which a large part of the new jobs are), is cold comfort to people who'd rather have a full time job.

Oh...and you are a blithering idiot. SRSLY