Nobody could have fixed the economy in 4 years.....

[percysunshine]

JAET

Just Another Excusify Thread.

 

[Toro]

Total utter horse shit...

Fuelling two wars and giving tax cuts to the rich really helped, right?

The housing bubble started under Raygun when he got rid of regulations for building societies and it snowballed from there..

I love this question, and since you have such a strong opinion, I hope you have the answers:

Give me three things you would do to aid the recovery? Take your time...

The housing bubble started under Raygun when he got rid of regulations for building societies and it snowballed from there..

holy shit thats funny, thx man.

True story

Not really. The S&L mess can be traced back to Reagan but not the Financial Crisis.

 

[Toro]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Reagan did.

Different circumstances, different problems, different economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

holy shit thats funny, thx man.

True story

Not really. The S&L mess can be traced back to Reagan but not the Financial Crisis.

Funny....the S&L bailout was paid back at a profit. It was roughly $150 billion.

 

[auditor0007]

I could live with not fixed, but not with the lack of progress. Not Good Enough. That's why I want a change.

Reagan's first term had very similar results to Obama's. While unemployment did drop by a whopping 1/10 of a percent from the time Reagan took office until right before election day, there was a substantial increase in public sector jobs. During the last three and a half years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in public sector jobs, so Obama has had to rely strictly on increases in the private sector. Had we seen similar increases in public sector jobs as Reagan saw, the unemployment rate would be substantially better. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really turned around.

This just goes to show that today's Republicans have done a much better job of demonizing Obama than Dems were able to do with Reagan in 84.

 

[mudwhistle]

I could live with not fixed, but not with the lack of progress. Not Good Enough. That's why I want a change.

Reagan's first term had very similar results to Obama's. While unemployment did drop by a whopping 1/10 of a percent from the time Reagan took office until right before election day, there was a substantial increase in public sector jobs. During the last three and a half years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in public sector jobs, so Obama has had to rely strictly on increases in the private sector. Had we seen similar increases in public sector jobs as Reagan saw, the unemployment rate would be substantially better. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really turned around.

This just goes to show that today's Republicans have done a much better job of demonizing Obama than Dems were able to do with Reagan in 84.

I think Obama's actions do that for him......or his inaction.

 

[auditor0007]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Reagan did.

Different circumstances, different problems, different economy.

Reagan saw an increase in public sector jobs during his first four years, where Obama has seen a very large decrease. Even with that, unemployment only dropped by 1/10 of one percent from the time Reagan took office until just before the 84 election. Reagan's real recovery did not happen until his second term.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan did.

Different circumstances, different problems, different economy.

Reagan saw an increase in public sector jobs during his first four years, where Obama has seen a very large decrease. Even with that, unemployment only dropped by 1/10 of one percent from the time Reagan took office until just before the 84 election. Reagan's real recovery did not happen until his second term.

Exactly the point. Further, Reagan increased government spending from 678 Billion in 1981 to 1.143 TRILLION in 1988. That is an increase of 80%.

By comparison, Obama has increased the federal budget from 3.5 trillion in 2009 to 3.7 trillion in 2012. That's a MINISCULE increase.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[mudwhistle]

Reagan did.

Different circumstances, different problems, different economy.

Reagan saw an increase in public sector jobs during his first four years, where Obama has seen a very large decrease. Even with that, unemployment only dropped by 1/10 of one percent from the time Reagan took office until just before the 84 election. Reagan's real recovery did not happen until his second term.

You say that like Obama had nothing to do with it.

Obama has almost completely frozen hiring for 3.5 years in the DoD.

 

[Katzndogz]

Reagan did not have the bonehead policies that obama has. Reagan did not want to jack up energy prices to promote idiocy like green energy. He did not artificially depress the food supply with mandatory ethanol production.

At the very least, obama is responsible for taking a bad situation and making it worse.

 

[JoeB131]

You say that like Obama had nothing to do with it.

Obama has almost completely frozen hiring for 3.5 years in the DoD.

And that's a bad thing, why?

If you are ending one war and trying to wind down another, you probably need less people working at the Defense Department. I mean, you'd think that.

Why is it "conservatives" think that the DoD is in some bubble where the rules that apply to all other agencies don't?

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan did not have the bonehead policies that obama has. Reagan did not want to jack up energy prices to promote idiocy like green energy. He did not artificially depress the food supply with mandatory ethanol production.

At the very least, obama is responsible for taking a bad situation and making it worse.

The Ethanol mandate was put into place long before Obama got there, and frankly, it's that ALL corn is subsidized. Not just the corn that goes into ethanol (which is kind of a worthless program) but the corn that is used for sugar production. (As a matter of agricultural officiency, cane sugar would be more economical, but sugar cane isn't subsidized to the degree corn production is.)

As for "Green" being idiocy... Um, what if the people who are talking about global warming are right?

Even if they aren't, developing the technologies that will keep money from flowing to Chavez and the Crazy Mullahs would seem kind of like a prudent investment to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I could live with not fixed, but not with the lack of progress. Not Good Enough. That's why I want a change.

Reagan's first term had very similar results to Obama's. While unemployment did drop by a whopping 1/10 of a percent from the time Reagan took office until right before election day, there was a substantial increase in public sector jobs. During the last three and a half years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in public sector jobs, so Obama has had to rely strictly on increases in the private sector. Had we seen similar increases in public sector jobs as Reagan saw, the unemployment rate would be substantially better. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really turned around.

This just goes to show that today's Republicans have done a much better job of demonizing Obama than Dems were able to do with Reagan in 84.

I think Obama's actions do that for him......or his inaction.

So now it's Obama's inaction that's the problem? I thought you people wanted government 'inaction'?

 

[Sinjorri]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Maybe Obama's new slogan should be "saved in 4, fixed by 8".

its bad enough Obama whines now his soliders do it, kiddies the problem is he has done nothing to even remotely give the hint that hes attempting something or enough policies or help to the people that need it to start the economy moving. thats the problem

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh lookie, the gay sailor believes Bill Clinton's lies.

Bill Clinton got lucky that the tech boom with the internet/Microsoft happened when he was sitting in the White House, and that he had the GOP running Congress to keep him under control.

Oh, you need to ask Bill Clinton how he made his budget "surplus" by claiming the Social Security safety pile of money in his budget.

Otherwise, he only knows about chasing skirts for a living....

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Maybe Obama's new slogan should be "saved in 4, fixed by 8".

 

[auditor0007]

Different circumstances, different problems, different economy.

Reagan saw an increase in public sector jobs during his first four years, where Obama has seen a very large decrease. Even with that, unemployment only dropped by 1/10 of one percent from the time Reagan took office until just before the 84 election. Reagan's real recovery did not happen until his second term.

Exactly the point. Further, Reagan increased government spending from 678 Billion in 1981 to 1.143 TRILLION in 1988. That is an increase of 80%.

By comparison, Obama has increased the federal budget from 3.5 trillion in 2009 to 3.7 trillion in 2012. That's a MINISCULE increase.

Historical Tables | The White House

Under Reagan, even when unemployment was over 10%, federal tax revenues were over 19% of GDP in 1981 and 1982. After the Reagan tax cuts took effect, revenues dropped to approximately 17.5% for the following few years before heading upwards to over 18% of GDP. That happened because Reagan actually raised a number of hidden taxes after reducing the top rate. Compare this to federal revenues during Obama's entire time in office when federal revenues have stagnated in the low 15% range. Of course this is due to the fact that under Reagan, tax rates were much higher than they are now under Obama.

But guess what? Republicans want to reduce taxes even more. And they will keep telling us that the only way to increase tax revenue is to lower taxes. Cutting tax rates leads to lower levels of revenue. This is basic arithmetic.

 

[Papageorgio]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Maybe Obama's new slogan should be "saved in 4, fixed by 8".

Obama said he could, so did he lie or just stupid, or extremely under qualified to access the situation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Reagan's first term had very similar results to Obama's. While unemployment did drop by a whopping 1/10 of a percent from the time Reagan took office until right before election day, there was a substantial increase in public sector jobs. During the last three and a half years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in public sector jobs, so Obama has had to rely strictly on increases in the private sector. Had we seen similar increases in public sector jobs as Reagan saw, the unemployment rate would be substantially better. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really turned around.

This just goes to show that today's Republicans have done a much better job of demonizing Obama than Dems were able to do with Reagan in 84.

I think Obama's actions do that for him......or his inaction.

So now it's Obama's inaction that's the problem? I thought you people wanted government 'inaction'?

You've drank too much Kool-aid.

We want reasonable government regulations designed to help the economy, not destroy capitalism.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Reagan's economy didn't take off until he was able to get the Democraps in Congress to lower taxes.

Strange that Democraps today want to raise taxes when Obamination has already fucked up the economy.

Anyone with common sense sees the pending disaster if the Democraps keep control of DC.

 

[Oldstyle]

I could live with not fixed, but not with the lack of progress. Not Good Enough. That's why I want a change.

Reagan's first term had very similar results to Obama's. While unemployment did drop by a whopping 1/10 of a percent from the time Reagan took office until right before election day, there was a substantial increase in public sector jobs. During the last three and a half years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in public sector jobs, so Obama has had to rely strictly on increases in the private sector. Had we seen similar increases in public sector jobs as Reagan saw, the unemployment rate would be substantially better. It wasn't until Reagan's second term that things really turned around.

This just goes to show that today's Republicans have done a much better job of demonizing Obama than Dems were able to do with Reagan in 84.

Actually, Auditor...what it shows is that the rather amusing claims that you progressives have been making THROUGHOUT Obama's first term that he was performing at the same level as Reagan in HIS first term are being shown for what they really were...wishful thinking.

Reagan did some heavy lifting during his first term, putting into place policies that were not politically popular but addressed the Stagflation that he was left by Carter. The reason that he was reelected in a landslide for his second term was that the American people could see that the economy was improving rapidly and that Reagan's policies were working.

Now contrast that with Barry.

We're in year four of the Obama Administration and his "policy chickens" are coming home to roost. The debt is over 16 trillion and still going up at a prodigious rate. Unemployment is still over 8% and this month hundreds of thousands of people once again gave up even looking for work as we created a paltry 95,000 jobs in August with MILLIONS looking for a job. And for the cherry on top of this economic melt down sundae we've got the real costs of ObamaCare about to start hitting American businesses and individuals.