Reagan's First 2 Years - 2.5 Million Jobs Lost

[BasicGreatGuy]

The benchmark for this Republic is the Constitution. It is not what Reagan did as compared to Obama or anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The benchmark for this Republic is the Constitution. It is not what Reagan did as compared to Obama or anyone else.

As it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and amended by the people through the Congress and states.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

COUGH COUGH

Facts are stubborn things

As a side note, it is John Adams who said the following. I thought you might be interested. He made the statement during the Boston Massacre trial.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

 

[JakeStarkey]

COUGH COUGH

Facts are stubborn things

As a side note, it is John Adams who said the following. I thought you might be interested. He made the statement during the Boston Massacre trial.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams defended the British soldiers at their trial. I have always thought Adams to be a Founder of tremendous personal integrity.

 

[Toro]

For the record, I thought Reagan was a great President.

I thought it then and I think it now.

 

[rdean]

I don't understand why people think presidents cause jobs. And look at the Republicans. What are they qualified for? They are anti education. They want to teach "mysticism" in public schools. I'm just not getting it.

During the last administration, with all the tax cuts for the rich and businesses moving jobs overseas with Republican support why does anyone believe there will suddenly be all these new jobs? And from where?

Not feeling this argument. Obama believes in education, Bush and the Republicans do not.

Republicans are going to stay a party of extremes. An unscrupulous wealthy business class who uses a poor, uneducated underclass. They are right there now. It's no secret. They are proud and proud to be rich, whatever the means, and proud to be poor and ignorant and want to stay that way.

The Reagan Boom faded with the election of the Pelosi Politburo and formally ended with the election of a Marxist President.

Your're a perfect example. Thank you.

 

[Ravi]

Reagan's First 2 Years - 2.5 Million Jobs Lost

Yeah, but that was Jimmy Carter's fault.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then you agree the job losses we're dealing with now are Obama's fault.

The fact of the matter is, the stimulus money will run out. It hasn't done much to help anyway, and as soon as it ceases to exist, we'll be worse off than we were to start with.

 

[code1211]

In the late 90s, the Republicans began the "Reagan legacy Project", which basicly rewrote history. They hadn't had a "hero" for years, so the just invented one.

I remember when Reagan was president. He was considered about as smart as George Bush.

<snip>
In fact, there's little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic recovery of the mid-1980s -- that was more the result of fiscal policies pursued by Jimmy Carter-appointed Fed chairman Paul Volcker, a steep drop in global oil prices and the normal bounce-back of the business cycle. What his tax cuts did accomplish was to initiate the period of a rising gap between the rich and poor in America, as well as the era of runaway CEO pay and unfettered greed on Wall Street.

The only evidence you need is this:

Reagan campaign slogan in '84 was simply this question, "Are better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

The answer from the American voters is shown below. That you try to claim that this was a re-write of history shows either a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened or a willful misrepresentation of it.

Either way or both ways, it's quite Obama-esque.

Like those who rail against Clinton, those who rail against Reagan are just out of touch with reality.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpt)

Results

Election results by county.
Ronald Reagan

Walter MondaleReagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

File:1984prescountymap2.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PeterS]

I guess if we are going to conclude that Obama is just awful because of all the job losses on his watch thus far, I guess we can also conclude that Reagan sucked far, far worse!

St. Louis Fed: FRED Graph[1][id]=PAYEMS

You are doing an apple/orange comparison. Reagan inherited an economy that was adding jobs and in recovery. Obama inherited an economy that was progressively shedding jobs and in full recession. The Reagan economy was one that was far more cyclical with lower productivity so when demand returned laid off workers were simply recalled and new workers added. The Obama economy is far more structural with very high productivity so there is no need to recall workers or hire new ones to meet an increase in demand.

If you are going to compare Obama to anyone it would be Bush and since we are still dealing with the effects of the recession that started under him it is too soon for that...

 

[PeterS]

In the late 90s, the Republicans began the "Reagan legacy Project", which basicly rewrote history. They hadn't had a "hero" for years, so the just invented one.

I remember when Reagan was president. He was considered about as smart as George Bush.

<snip>
In fact, there's little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic recovery of the mid-1980s -- that was more the result of fiscal policies pursued by Jimmy Carter-appointed Fed chairman Paul Volcker, a steep drop in global oil prices and the normal bounce-back of the business cycle. What his tax cuts did accomplish was to initiate the period of a rising gap between the rich and poor in America, as well as the era of runaway CEO pay and unfettered greed on Wall Street.

The only evidence you need is this:

Reagan campaign slogan in '84 was simply this question, "Are better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

The answer from the American voters is shown below. That you try to claim that this was a re-write of history shows either a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened or a willful misrepresentation of it.

Either way or both ways, it's quite Obama-esque.

Like those who rail against Clinton, those who rail against Reagan are just out of touch with reality.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpt)

Results

Election results by county.
Ronald Reagan

Walter MondaleReagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

File:1984prescountymap2.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the only evidence we need is a campaign slogan? Sorry, I prefer to look at more than just that...

 

[code1211]

In the late 90s, the Republicans began the "Reagan legacy Project", which basicly rewrote history. They hadn't had a "hero" for years, so the just invented one.

I remember when Reagan was president. He was considered about as smart as George Bush.

<snip>
In fact, there's little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic recovery of the mid-1980s -- that was more the result of fiscal policies pursued by Jimmy Carter-appointed Fed chairman Paul Volcker, a steep drop in global oil prices and the normal bounce-back of the business cycle. What his tax cuts did accomplish was to initiate the period of a rising gap between the rich and poor in America, as well as the era of runaway CEO pay and unfettered greed on Wall Street.

The only evidence you need is this:

Reagan campaign slogan in '84 was simply this question, "Are better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

The answer from the American voters is shown below. That you try to claim that this was a re-write of history shows either a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened or a willful misrepresentation of it.

Either way or both ways, it's quite Obama-esque.

Like those who rail against Clinton, those who rail against Reagan are just out of touch with reality.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpt)

Results

Election results by county.
Ronald Reagan

Walter MondaleReagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

File:1984prescountymap2.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the only evidence we need is a campaign slogan? Sorry, I prefer to look at more than just that...

The evidence is that he carried 49 states and would have carried 50 if he'd gotten another 20 or so votes in Minnesota. No candidate has ever had that majority in the electoral college.

It seems odd that if you "prefer to look at more than just that", you refuse to even though it was bold face and highlighted in red.

There are none so blind...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the late 90s, the Republicans began the "Reagan legacy Project", which basicly rewrote history. They hadn't had a "hero" for years, so the just invented one.

I remember when Reagan was president. He was considered about as smart as George Bush.

<snip>
In fact, there's little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts caused the economic recovery of the mid-1980s -- that was more the result of fiscal policies pursued by Jimmy Carter-appointed Fed chairman Paul Volcker, a steep drop in global oil prices and the normal bounce-back of the business cycle. What his tax cuts did accomplish was to initiate the period of a rising gap between the rich and poor in America, as well as the era of runaway CEO pay and unfettered greed on Wall Street.

The only evidence you need is this:

Reagan campaign slogan in '84 was simply this question, "Are better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

The answer from the American voters is shown below. That you try to claim that this was a re-write of history shows either a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened or a willful misrepresentation of it.

Either way or both ways, it's quite Obama-esque.

Like those who rail against Clinton, those who rail against Reagan are just out of touch with reality.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpt)

Results

Election results by county.
Ronald Reagan

Walter MondaleReagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

File:1984prescountymap2.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the only evidence we need is a campaign slogan? Sorry, I prefer to look at more than just that...

Remember, there are only 50 states, not 57 like your hero believes

 

[rdean]

The only evidence you need is this:

Reagan campaign slogan in '84 was simply this question, "Are better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

The answer from the American voters is shown below. That you try to claim that this was a re-write of history shows either a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened or a willful misrepresentation of it.

Either way or both ways, it's quite Obama-esque.

Like those who rail against Clinton, those who rail against Reagan are just out of touch with reality.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpt)

Results

Election results by county.
Ronald Reagan

Walter MondaleReagan was re-elected following the November 6 election in an electoral and popular vote landslide, winning 49 states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (from his home state of Minnesota—which he won by 0.18%—and the District of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history in the Electoral College, though others, including Alton Parker, James M. Cox, John W. Davis, and George McGovern, did worse in the popular vote.

File:1984prescountymap2.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the only evidence we need is a campaign slogan? Sorry, I prefer to look at more than just that...

Remember, there are only 50 states, not 57 like your hero believes

No one believes that. You and everyone knows that he visited states 57 times because he visited some states twice. You guys race to see who can be the loudest idiot. You are fringe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the only evidence we need is a campaign slogan? Sorry, I prefer to look at more than just that...

Remember, there are only 50 states, not 57 like your hero believes

No one believes that. You and everyone knows that he visited states 57 times because he visited some states twice. You guys race to see who can be the loudest idiot. You are fringe.

Taking another bullet for Obama's total fucking stupidity. Damn, your Mom must be so proud of you.

 

[Toro]

You are doing an apple/orange comparison. Reagan inherited an economy that was adding jobs and in recovery. Obama inherited an economy that was progressively shedding jobs and in full recession. The Reagan economy was one that was far more cyclical with lower productivity so when demand returned laid off workers were simply recalled and new workers added. The Obama economy is far more structural with very high productivity so there is no need to recall workers or hire new ones to meet an increase in demand.

If you are going to compare Obama to anyone it would be Bush and since we are still dealing with the effects of the recession that started under him it is too soon for that...

Reagan was dealing with an era of high inflation and high interest rates. Rates were punishingly high under Reagan. This is the primary reason why so many jobs were lost during the beginning of his term.

Likewise, once Volcker and the Fed broke the back of inflation, interest rates began to fall. This is probably the main reason for the boom that followed.

Ideologues don't like to hear this. On the Left, they blame Reagan for the job losses. On the Right, they gave him all the credit. In reality, monetary policy was almost certainly more important as the economy in the early 80s was at the end of an inflationary cycle that began nearly 20 years earlier.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan's Tax cuts made everybody's stuff worth more and made it more worthwhile to start and expand businesses. It's so basic even a Librul should be able to understand it.

Statists wingnuts cannot accept the idea that economic growth is even possible without Big Gubbamint and a "Great" President like FDR (8 years of average 17% unemployment) guiding the ship of state.

 

[mascale]

So Reagan came into office in an expanding economy, crashed it, recovered it, crashed the stock market, and created the misery index, impetus for minority youth gang murders. Ron and Nancy set up the failed Administration of George, and the White Woman: With the funny 'Doo.

In contrast, Obama-Biden came into office in a crashing, panic-striken, frenzied bail-out atrocity--ignoring the poor and minorities altogether, and brought the job-losses down 500,000 per month, within six months.

So back to the message-maker, at the start who posted, "Reagan created 16 mil. jobs. Call me later," or some such thing. Obama-Biden have 500,000 fewer job losses per month, for 8 months, easily said a stimulus effect of saving about 4.0 mil. jobs, apparently already "created?"

On that basis, should we all start dialing the fellow, about all the Obama-Biden jobs already created?

That would be on a comparative basis with what was going on last fall and winter.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Anyone can credit Obama-Biden for completely ignoring minority employment, especially at the younger ages, but mainly everyone seems to be relieved!)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thank God for Toro, seriously (in response to you're above post and for what im quoting below).

How many jobs has Obama lost in 9 months? Employment Situation Summary

Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs.


Total nonfarm ...................| -824,000 | -0.6
Total private ..................| -855,000 | -.8
Mining and logging............| -23,000 | -3.2
Construction .................| -152,000 | -2.5
Manufacturing ................| -67,000 | -.6
Trade, transportation, and | |
utilities...................| -282,000 | -1.1
Information ..................| -36,000 | -1.3
Financial activities .........| -9,000 | -.1
Professional and business | |
services ...................| -111,000 | -.7
Education and health services.| -57,000 | -.3
Leisure and hospitality.......| -76,000 | -.6
Other services ...............| -42,000 | -.8
Government .....................| 31,000


Ok Ok I was a tiny bit off, Obama has lost 2,503,000 jobs since taking office. I hope his administration and congress turns it around like reagan's did.

One big difference is that there are ~50% more people in the workforce today than in 1980.

So apples to apples, we would have to see 4 million jobs lost under Obama.

Good point Toro, very good point.

now to do math. 50% more people in the workforce means that the number would have to be 3.8 million for them to be the same.

Now we also have to take time periods into account. so reagan lost 105,000 jobs/month over 2 years.

Obama's number, adjusted for the increase in the labor force would be 185,000 jobs/month over 9 months, that is adjusted for the larger workforce. without adjustment it would be 275,000/month

 

[Zander]

So Reagan came into office in an expanding economy, crashed it, recovered it, crashed the stock market, and created the misery index, impetus for minority youth gang murders. Ron and Nancy set up the failed Administration of George, and the White Woman: With the funny 'Doo.

In contrast, Obama-Biden came into office in a crashing, panic-striken, frenzied bail-out atrocity--ignoring the poor and minorities altogether, and brought the job-losses down 500,000 per month, within six months.

So back to the message-maker, at the start who posted, "Reagan created 16 mil. jobs. Call me later," or some such thing. Obama-Biden have 500,000 fewer job losses per month, for 8 months, easily said a stimulus effect of saving about 4.0 mil. jobs, apparently already "created?"

On that basis, should we all start dialing the fellow, about all the Obama-Biden jobs already created?

That would be on a comparative basis with what was going on last fall and winter.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Anyone can credit Obama-Biden for completely ignoring minority employment, especially at the younger ages, but mainly everyone seems to be relieved!)

With all due respect, maybe you should revisit the facts. Reagan inherited an economy in shambles thanks to Jimmy Carter's mismanagement of the economy. The Misery index was created in the early 1970's .

During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.

As you can see, there is no "Contrast". To be fair, both Reagan and Obama inherited bad economic situations. Reagan came out with 16 million jobs CREATED at the end of his two terms. So far, Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs. Not one job has been created so far. NADA. ZILCH. Obama now has 3 years to turn it around or he'll most likely be dismissed like his ideological doppleganger, Mr. Jimmy Carter.