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.
CON$ have been brainwashed to equate Obama to Carter and they are programmed to close themselves off to anyone who tries to deprogram them.At this same point in St Ronnie's first term UE was 9.8% and rising, so Obama is still less of an epic failure than Reagan.
The difference was that Reagan had a clue what would work to stimulate the private sector. Obama either hasn't figured it out or he refuses to create policies that will spur private sector growth. He appears to believe that government is a legitimate profitable business.
At some point in the past, I put ol' ed the cynic on iggy. I didn't notice who made the comment until I started the response.
Comparing the the Obama recovery to the Reagan Recovery is not appropriate. Comparing the the Obama Recovery to the Carter Recovery is appropriate.
Comparing whoever follows Obama to the Reagan Recovery will be appropriate.
There needs to be abject loss of hope and rock bottom desperation rampant in the populace to allow a valid comparrison between the situation in the country at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and any other situation.
A few more years of underperformance in the economy, lessening respect abroad, selective enforcement of law and utter impotence in dealing with any critical issue should do it.
The country divides roughly into two groups: Those who remember how the Carter years felt and those who are about to find out.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.htmlMost of the effects of these policies were favorable, even if somewhat disappointing compared to what the administration predicted. Economic growth increased from a 2.8 percent annual rate in the Carter administration, but this is misleading because the growth of the working-age population was much slower in the Reagan years. Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. The combination of conditions proved that there is no long-run trade-off between the unemployment rate and the inflation rate (see Phillips Curve). Other conditions were more mixed. The rate of new business formation increased sharply, but the rate of bank failures was the highest since the thirties. Real interest rates increased sharply, but inflation-adjusted prices of common stocks more than doubled.
The U.S. economy experienced substantial turbulence during the Reagan years despite favorable general economic conditions. This was the "creative destruction" that is characteristic of a healthy economy. At the end of the Reagan administration, the U.S. economy had experienced the longest peacetime expansion ever. The "stagflation" and "malaise" that plagued the U.S. economy from 1973 through 1980 were transformed by the Reagan economic program into a sustained period of higher growth and lower inflation.
Bullshit code democrats loved Carter.
Again we have an example of the complete dishonesty of CON$ervative sources. Right wing GOP think tanks pay people big bucks to create deliberately misleading dishonest charts like this.The only recovery is in the Government sector at the expense of the private sector.
The only recovery is in the Government sector at the expense of the private sector.
Workforce Since Obama became President
Workforce Since Democrats took over Congress
Umm that first chart is during the Bush years.
Most of the jobs added during the bush years were govt spending supported jobs.
Its been a while since I reported on private-sector and public-sector job growth since the passage of the stimulus bill. Here is a chart, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that speaks for itself.
　
Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.
