Reagan vs Obama: Raw Numbers of the 1st two years

[Vast LWC]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

 

[Stephanie]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

you're kidding, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

No he wasn't.

The misery index was 20.76 when Reagan took office. It was 9.61 when Obama took office.

The difference between the two is that Reagan's policies improved the index while Obama's are making it worse.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that chart represents.

The numbers on that site mark Reagan's unemployment numbers as becoming significantly higher in the first two years of his term, and inflation still growing, while Obama's numbers are much lower.

thats why I asked you when the recession ended ala reagan and obama....( my answer is a page back btw).....

the yardstick must start at that point. I won't even go into why it was important Reagan had to back Volcker, Reagan owns it........just saying 2 years really means little , time is not linear vis a vis economic movement/effect etc. its a sliding scale.

But the "misery index", which according to the chart measures unemployment + inflation, is higher for Obama. What does that even mean? Spin perhaps?

no, its not spin, it means 18 months after the end of the recession ( 6-09) we are not yet, making up any ground, anywhere.

So, what do you constitute as "making up ground" on the misery index if not unemployment and inflation?

GDP has certainly grown since then.

Please explain.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fudge a bunch of numbers. What the hell do they mean?

The fact is that Barack Obama is not Ronnie Reagan.

Who's fudging? Those are the raw numbers from the agencies that rate those types of things.

 

[Sallow]

Fudge a bunch of numbers. What the hell do they mean?

The fact is that Barack Obama is not Ronnie Reagan.

Thank the fates for small miracles. That would mean President Obama would have to become the treasonous, Constitution violating, voodoo economics, big spending, divorcee that President Reagan was..

 

[boedicca]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

No he wasn't.

The misery index was 20.76 when Reagan took office. It was 9.61 when Obama took office.

The difference between the two is that Reagan's policies improved the index while Obama's are making it worse.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that chart represents.

The numbers on that site mark Reagan's unemployment numbers as becoming significantly higher in the first two years of his term, and inflation still growing, while Obama's numbers are much lower.

But the "misery index", which according to the chart measures unemployment + inflation, is higher for Obama. What does that even mean? Spin perhaps?

Reading can be your friend.

The misery index is Inflation plus Unemployment. Look at the trends by year. The index dropped during Reagan's term. It is increasing during Obama's - and is actually understated due to the changes in how unemployment and inflation are calculated.

We do have inflation now - the fed's just don't count ENERGY and FOOD price increases as inflation.

Go figure.

 

[Sallow]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

Actually..the inflation was pretty much on the decline when Reagan entered office. And he had the tools to fight it. Interest rates were sky high.

 

[boedicca]

Fudge a bunch of numbers. What the hell do they mean?

The fact is that Barack Obama is not Ronnie Reagan.

Barry sure ain't no Gipper, fo shizzle.

 

[boedicca]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

Actually..the inflation was pretty much on the decline when Reagan entered office. And he had the tools to fight it. Interest rates were sky high.

Inflation was pretty much on the decline? Where? On Betelgeuse? It wasn't an automatic given that the inflationary cycle would be broken - and it certainly wasn't going to be corrected without a big economic and political price.

Average montjly inflation was 13.58% in 1980. It was 11.2% in 1979. It was not on the decline in the 1980 election. Out of control inflation was a big election issue. When Reagan took office it was 11.83%. That is hardly "under control".

The tight money policies to tame inflation caused a recession which increased unemployment. You can't blame Reagan for unemployment while not giving him credit for reduced inflation.

 

[rightwinger]

They both used deficit spending to reverse the deficit, Reagan spent on the military, Obama spent on infrastructure

Both cut taxes

 

[Sallow]

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

Actually..the inflation was pretty much on the decline when Reagan entered office. And he had the tools to fight it. Interest rates were sky high.

Inflation was pretty much on the decline? Where? On Betelgeuse? It wasn't an automatic given that the inflationary cycle would be broken - and it certainly wasn't going to be corrected without a big economic and political price.

Average montjly inflation was 13.58% in 1980. It was 11.2% in 1979. It was not on the decline in the 1980 election. Out of control inflation was a big election issue. When Reagan took office it was 11.83%. That is hardly "under control".

The tight money policies to tame inflation caused a recession which increased unemployment. You can't blame Reagan for unemployment while not giving him credit for reduced inflation.

Which post did I blame Reagan for unemployment?

The recession was part of Paul Volcker's strategy.

 

[Stephanie]

Snip:

Obama Equal Reagan? So Far, It Ain't Even Close
A Commentary By Lawrence Kudlow
Saturday, February 12, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
A week after Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday celebration, comparisons between Presidents Obama and Reagan continue.

The conversation began when Obama praised Reagan in a USA Today op-ed. He commended Reagan's leadership, his confidence in and optimism for America, and his great ability to communicate his vision for the country. Reaganites like myself appreciate these sentiments.

But so far, the differences between the two presidents are still huge.

Begin with the economy. Reagan and Obama both inherited deep and brutal recessions. But the first six recovery quarters look completely different for each president.

So far, real gross domestic product has averaged only 3 percent annually for Obama. Employment as defined by nonfarm payrolls has increased by a paltry 121,000.

On the other hand, going back to Reagan's first six recovery quarters, real GDP averaged 7.7 percent annually, while nonfarm payrolls rose by 5.3 million.

No two situations are exactly alike. Reagan inherited massive double-digit inflation with 20 percent interest rates. Obama was left with a colossal financial meltdown. But Reagan's economic vision put private-sector free enterprise at the center. Obama has chosen a massive expansion of government power.

These are huge differences. One succeeded, while thus far the other has not.

While Obama's first act was an $800 billion government-spending package, one of Reagan's first decisions was a near $50 billion domestic-spending cut ($100 billion in constant dollars today). Obama went for a nationalized health care plan, energy cap-and-tax-and-trade and pro-union card check. Reagan ended wage and price controls, deregulated all energy prices, terminated the Synthetic Fuels Corp. and fired the striking air-traffic controllers. Big differences.

Drawing from the work of Arthur Laffer and Robert Mundell, Reagan saw the economic-growth benefits of limited government, lower tax rates and a dollar as good as gold. Gold prices plunged as Reagan and Paul Volcker worked to vanquish inflation. Ever-soaring inflation was the cruelest tax hike of all. But in the Reagan years, the inflation rate dropped from near 13 percent to as low as 2 percent -- a huge disinflation tax cut. Accompanied by lower marginal tax rates, the Reagan policies sparked a powerful recovery in business and jobs.

Reagan slashed tax rates across the board for individuals, investors and businesses. At the margin, his reforms lowered the top personal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. And he left a simple two-bracket tax code that cut thousands of pages of IRS rules and regulations.

And while the top individual tax rate was slashed under Reagan, individual income-tax revenues increased from roughly $300 billion to $450 billion. In other words, the Laffer curve worked. With surging economic growth, the incentives from lower tax rates actually raised tax revenues.

Obama, on the other hand, campaigned to raise tax rates on successful earners and investors. Along with the dozens of taxes legislated into Obamacare, these are all job stoppers.

Only after the 2010 election landslide did Obama finally agree to extend the 2003 Bush tax rates for a couple of years. But he continues his pledge to hike those taxes again when the deal expires in 2012.

read it all here.
Obama Equal Reagan? So Far, It Ain't Even Close - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Trajan]

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that chart represents.

The numbers on that site mark Reagan's unemployment numbers as becoming significantly higher in the first two years of his term, and inflation still growing, while Obama's numbers are much lower.

thats why I asked you when the recession ended ala reagan and obama....( my answer is a page back btw).....

the yardstick must start at that point. I won't even go into why it was important Reagan had to back Volcker, Reagan owns it........just saying 2 years really means little , time is not linear vis a vis economic movement/effect etc. its a sliding scale.

But the "misery index", which according to the chart measures unemployment + inflation, is higher for Obama. What does that even mean? Spin perhaps?

no, its not spin, it means 18 months after the end of the recession ( 6-09) we are not yet, making up any ground, anywhere.

So, what do you constitute as "making up ground" on the misery index if not unemployment and inflation?

GDP has certainly grown since then.

Please explain.

making up ground is what you saw then, after just 5 months after the end of the 1982 recession (ended November), you can check the numbers....we have been out of the recession for 18 months now ( 6 quarters)....

heres a comparison chart, note the expansion quarters after the end of the recessions....09 vs. 82....btw, the Q4 gdp for 2010 was 3.2.....

unemployment dropped to 7.4% in the fist year to year of the expansion, and inflation;
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2
1984 4.3

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As far as the numbers go, Obama is looking significantly better than Reagan.

Now, I'm not Reagan bashing here, personally I kind of liked him, but it just seems odd to me that the same people who idolize Reagan are loud critics of Obama's performance so far.

The two administrations are not comparable because the conditions each are working under as well as the overall environment of the economy and America as a whole are not the same for both administrations.

 

[Trajan]

Both cut taxes

 

[Trajan]

As far as the numbers go, Obama is looking significantly better than Reagan.

Now, I'm not Reagan bashing here, personally I kind of liked him, but it just seems odd to me that the same people who idolize Reagan are loud critics of Obama's performance so far.

The two administrations are not comparable because the conditions each are working under as well as the overall environment of the economy and America as a whole are not the same for both administrations.

yes, to an extent I agree, in the final analysis we vote for success.

 

[Trajan]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

Actually..the inflation was pretty much on the decline when Reagan entered office. And he had the tools to fight it. Interest rates were sky high.

uh huh see the numbers below
1974 11.0
1975 9.1
1976 5.8
1977 6.5
1978 7.6
1979 11.3
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2
1984 4.3

........you know why inflation event down? because of the reagan recession getting our monetary house in order.

 

[rightwinger]

Both cut taxes

Asu the great Casey Stengle once said...

You can look it up

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When up for reelection Reagan won all but one of our 57 states. Soros already told Obama he's a one-termer

 

[McDowell's]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

Well....

Reagan did have massive inflation to fight, and skyrocketing Oil prices.

However, Obama had 2 wars, skyrocketing Oil prices, and the near collapse of the Stock market.

So, I'm thinking it's about a wash, with the "who's worse off" edge just slightly going to Obama.

You're joking right? Obama came in on the tail end of the recession. Most of the steps that actually stabilized the economy were implemented before Obama ever even set foot in the oval office. The market bottomed out in the first two months of Obama's first year; the recession ended within the first five months. Oil prices started 2009 at less than 1/4 of the previous year's high and made it up to barely over 1/2 of the previous year's high. At worst, he had relatively moderate oil prices to deal with. He's just now experiencing comparable oil prices to the last few years of Bush Jr.'s presidency. Even the housing market bottomed out in the early part of 2009. Inflation was incredibly low so he had the flexibility to partake in an incredible amount of monetary manipulation. He basically came in the with the perfect set up to throw out some really good economic numbers. Everything was bottoming out when he came into office; he started at a low point. Yet here we are two years later with minimal improvement.