Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #21
Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Um..that was the Paul Volcker "recession".
Reagan had nothing to do with it.
And Obama began his term with a huge recession bordering on outright depression. And a 0% interest rate. It was the beginning of an economic collapse heralded by George W. Bush.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The heartbreak of economic and political history on parade ^^^
No..I just pointed out one of the many fallacies of your many erroneous economic "analysis".
Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?
Obama helped CREATE the mess.
Fanny and Freddie.
end of story.
try again
There were two entirely different recessions.
The first recession, known as the "Second Oil Shock Recession" was over in July of 1980, before Reagan took office.
The second recession in the early 80's, known as the "Volcker Recession" began in August of 1981 and lasted officially for 16 months.
http://www.econ.tcu.edu/harvey/50453/recessions.pdf
Comparing two completely different economic conditions seperated by 3 decades is fucking stupid.
This thread is the laziest attempt at scoring political points I've seen in quite some time.
Obama helped CREATE the mess.
Fanny and Freddie.
end of story.
try again
Please now realize that the ONLY people who believe this was caused by the FMs are right wing republicans.
The economists dont agree with you.
Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?
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.
Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?
uh huh, according to krugman the reagan expansion was a given because the economy had farther back to come from....so? its been 18months since the end of the recession, when do we start since, you know , since bush put us in the worse shape of the history of the world?
see, thats what you get when you try to thread the needle and blab talking points because you hate someone.
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?
lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.
That is not debateable folks
You are confusing Reagan with Clinton.
The bubble dotcom/telecom/Y2K economy was a faux era of growth.
Reagan tames inflation and enabled the real economy to create jobs.
Bullshit.
The fallacy of the "dot.com bust" is that is was largely cleaned up prior to George W. Bush assuming office. And basically it represented a good number of businesses trying to figure out what to do with the new business model the Clinton whitehouse rolled out.
It's wildly successful now. ECNs are just one example of that.
I'll just chalk this up to your extreme lack of business experience.
The Y2K bubble pulled forward a great deal of tech spending.
The dotcom and resulting telecom bubbles resulted in a huge amount of tech spending which, after the bubble burst, created a huge inventory of used equipment. This overhang of used inventory took a few years to liquidate.
Add 9/11 to the mix, and the period of 2001-2004 was Very Grim for tech companies