Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #41
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This looks like a fun game, how do you play?
I'd like to see Nixon Vs Clinton. "I'm not a crook" VS "I did not have sex with that woman."
Reagan vs Obama is kind of like saying Almighty God vs Jesus isn't it?
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jimmy Carter D 19771981 80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.2%
Ronald Reagan R 19811985 91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%
Ronald Reagan R 19851989 96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%
George H. W. Bush R 19891993 107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%
Bill Clinton D 19931997 109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%
Bill Clinton D 19972001 121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%
George W. Bush R 20012005 132,469 132,453 +0.0 -0.0%
George W. Bush R 20052009 132,453 133,563 +1.1 +0.1%
Barack Obama D 20092013 133,563 130,515 (Feb. 2011) -3.05 (Feb. 2011)
I'm putting this in Politics because the economic performance is a function of policy, leadership and politics.
Reagan vs. Obama - A Tale of Two Recoveries
Which policies achieved the better result:
And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.
How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).
What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.
Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.
In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.
The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....
Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com
Very important to keep trying to teach them the economic facts....sorry it wouldn't allow me to add a rep.
Yeah, those damned pesky facts just always get in the way. This is in direct response to the Investors Daily piece:
Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery « Commentary Magazine
The two economies are not exactly comparable, of course. Manufacturing jobs, to which workers can be quickly summoned back, make up a much smaller percentage of the total jobs today. Inflation fell sharply in and after the 8182 recession, while it is increasing today. Housing prices had not suffered nearly the hit they have taken in recent years, adversely influencing peoples perception of their ability to spend money. The microprocessor revolution was much less advanced then than now, when firms contemplating expansion are more likely to look to investing in new technology than in new employees (although the new technology will create more jobs in the long run).
What was the tax on the 1% when Reagan was in office?
How dep was the recession Ronnie dealth with?
Who got us out of the great depression?
Certainly not FDR.
1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the second New Deal and Roosevelts second term. The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that on the whole it retarded recovery. Articles & Commentary
I understand that this bit of remediation will not change neither your thinking nor your posts, but I appreciate the fact that we, therefore, make a dynamite pair.
You go on fudging the truth, and I'll go on correcting you!
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.2%
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,469 132,453 +0.0 -0.0%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,453 133,563 +1.1 +0.1%
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,563 130,515 (Feb. 2011) -3.05 (Feb. 2011)
So what you've posted shows that 10.8M jobs were created during Reagan's terms and the benefits of his policies continued through the 1990s. And so far, Obama has lost 3M.
Thanks!
Reagan is a myth.
the real Reagan was not what the republicans have built up in their minds.
Facts , cold hard facts prove this.
While the Leftists attempt to separate the economic realities of the Reagan presidency from the realpolitik, the truth is that the military costs that President Reagan subscribed to purchased freedom for the United States and the free world.
That was fine, but following the demise of the Cold War and no imminent threat from the Soviets any longer, Reagan should have began reducing the Pentagon budget, not continue to increase it.
The irony is that the Reagan presidency, specifically the Reagan-Greenspan Commission, provided the 'trust funds' that the Left-leaning Clinton used to make his budgets look better while he was bowing to the wishes of the Dictator Fidel Castro.
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jimmy Carter D 19771981 80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.2%
Ronald Reagan R 19811985 91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%
Ronald Reagan R 19851989 96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%
George H. W. Bush R 19891993 107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%
Bill Clinton D 19931997 109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%
Bill Clinton D 19972001 121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%
George W. Bush R 20012005 132,469 132,453 +0.0 -0.0%
George W. Bush R 20052009 132,453 133,563 +1.1 +0.1%
Barack Obama D 20092013 133,563 130,515 (Feb. 2011) -3.05 (Feb. 2011)
So what you've posted shows that 10.8M jobs were created during Reagan's terms and the benefits of his policies continued through the 1990s. And so far, Obama has lost 3M.
Thanks!
A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.
TMN,
Please explain in your own words what Post #53 means.
Cut them to what? What were the top rates? Should we go back to the rates under his administration?
And an ever consistent call for selective equal treatment...
"Higher taxes on the rich.. higher taxes on the rich...." sounds like a goddamn parrot, and about as bright as one
And I'll take the top bracket tax rates in 88 under Reagan, any day... as long as the rest of you fuckers start paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned as well
And lest we forget the levels and availability of itemized deductions, before you ignorant lefties keep continuing with a call for 70 or 90% tax rates
Who is calling for 70 or 90% top tax rates? How about just rolling them back to pre-Bush levels?
Very important to keep trying to teach them the economic facts....sorry it wouldn't allow me to add a rep.
Yeah, those damned pesky facts just always get in the way. This is in direct response to the Investors Daily piece:
Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery « Commentary Magazine
The two economies are not exactly comparable, of course. Manufacturing jobs, to which workers can be quickly summoned back, make up a much smaller percentage of the total jobs today. Inflation fell sharply in and after the 8182 recession, while it is increasing today. Housing prices had not suffered nearly the hit they have taken in recent years, adversely influencing peoples perception of their ability to spend money. The microprocessor revolution was much less advanced then than now, when firms contemplating expansion are more likely to look to investing in new technology than in new employees (although the new technology will create more jobs in the long run).
Did you miss post #19?
....on purpose?