The Stimulus didn't really kick into any collected number for quite some time while the deluge of job slowed anyhow. To say the Stimulus was responsible is utterly wrong. My opinion, the very worst of the economic downturn occurred once it was clear Obama WOULD be president. That fueled the contraction as business prepared to be raped. And raped they were. Rich and stoooopid describes Dear Leader From Behind but it doesn't describe too many entrepreneurs.
Not going to waste much time with your BS, as it is total BS. Obama became President in Jan 2009. Not Jan 2010. BLS table A-9 read them and weep. Hard count. Full time employed. No "seasonal adjustment" gimmickry. What's the matter ? Can't play with the real numbers ? So he gained back some of that was lost on his watch. He is still at a net loss since he became President. HELLO !! Last bit of your lying BS numbers that I will address. Look at the "numbers" you have chosen. At this point in their respective Presidencies, Reagan had 4.4 million more folks working full time than when he took office. Obama 100,000 less. Yet you cite "Unemployment" rates. Fact is, Reagan had folks flooding back into the employment market, such that his Labor Participation Rate was going through the roof. Its that convenient distortion for Obama. His Unemployment rate is down only because more folks have quit looking for work than have lost jobs. Reagan had 4.4 million more working full time, AND even more wanting to get back into the work force. Christ I hope you are here November 2012. Your and your boy will be reaping the cesspool that you have sewn.
Couldn't find even one fact. Proving your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is baseless once again. In Jan 2009 Bush was still president, and we were experiencing the the consequences of his wonderful administration: Taking economies and stock markets, skyrocketing unemployment, 700,000 jobs lost a month. I can appreciate you want to tag the last conservative's mess on Obama. Blaming him for Bush's disaster is the only way you can make his figures look comparable to Reagan's. LOL, so if you ignore seasonal adjustments, count all the summer temporary jobs, the number of employed increased from when Reagan took office (when the economy was booming). I have to give you credit for finding that. Of course, you have to consider that Reagan *lost* 1.35 million jobs in the following 6 months. Total full time employment Jun 1983 84,218 Jun 1984 82,867 That's not very impressive, is it? And if we look at their performance after the first year in office, when the economy wasn't being influence by their predecessor's policies, we have Jan 82 80,255 Ju1 83 84,218 Jan 10 108,777 Jul 11 113,759 Obama beats Reagan again, 5 million to 4 million. Doesn't it suck for you when your hero is so consistently bettered by a black socialist president? More BS. Blaming Obama for the effects of the Great Recession he inherited from the last conservative we had in the White House. You mean just before he lost 1.35 million jobs? Reagan didn't come into office in an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month. Of course if you include the first 6 months to a year Reagan looks better. The economy was growing when he took office and tanking when Obama took office. Look at the first two months in office: Jan 81 81,205 Mar 81 81,558 Jan 09 113,815 Mar 09 112,215 350,000 are gained when Reagan took office from Carter's policies; 1.6 million are lost when Obama takes office from Bush's policies. Are you trying to claim Obama is responsible for the 1.6 million jobs lost in the first two months he took office? And you have the gall to accuse *me* of "blantant dishonesty"? Fact is the only way you can possible try to compare Reagan with Obama is when you include the lousy economy Obama inherited. The fact is, when you compare their performance after the first 6 months or year, Obama beats Reagan in every category. The fact is, even though he took office in a booming economy, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%, and 31 months later, it was 9.4%. 1.9 percentage points worse. Obama took office in the worst recession since the great depression, and in the comparable time, unemployment has gone from 7.8% to only 9.1%. a 1.3 percentage point difference. The fact is put aside the mythology, distortions and blatant hero worship, and Obama beats Reagan in most every major category. Sorry to break it to you.
Before the stimulus, the economy was tanking at a -7% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and we were headed straight for a depression. But now the economy has been growing steadily for a year and a half, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year, stock markets are up about 75%, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, and 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010. If we have another "failure" like that one, the economy should be booming at record levels next year. Just in time for the recession.
LOL .... Obama sucks no matter how you measure. All of his performance numbers are terrible. As I illustrated. Every friggin one. I will especially savor seeing a few of you here Nov 2012.
Expect of course, when you measure him against Reagan for their first 30 months in office. Obama vs. Reagan - (Jun 1983/2011 - 30 months into office) Unemployment: Reagan at this point in his presidency had a 2.6 percentage point increase in unemployment. Obama has had a 1.4 percentage point increase in unemployment. and the Deficit: Reagan had $46 billion, 64% increase in the deficit in his first full fiscal year Obama had a $179.5 billion, 11.5% decrease in the deficit in his first full fiscal year. and the stock market: Reagan: A 30% increase in the Dow at this point in his presidency Obama: A 55% increase in the Dow at this point in his presidency and GDP: Reagan had a 4.4 percentage point worsening in GDP growth to -1.9% growth in his second year. Obama had a 5.5 percentage point improvement in GDP to 2.9% growth in his second year. Then Obama doesn't suck so bad. Or Reagan sucks a lot worse. Take your pick. Game. Set. Match.
Reagan had 4.4 million more folks working 31 months in. Obama has 100K less people working now than when he was sworn in. But liberals, such as yourself, like to hide behind the Labor Participation Rate anomaly. Take your percentage to the 100K less folks working. Take it to the 3 million more in the work force. Your boy is going down hard. And millions of idiot libs with him, stuck to that gubmit teat.
We will never get our manufacturing jobs back if China, India and Indonesia can offer their workers 50 cents an hour and our minimum wage is 7 bucks an hour.
We heard this in 2009,in 2010..still unemployment is high. Its all just the same crap,only rehashed. Its all been tried and all have failed not once but TWICE. More construction jobs=more spending. This guy JUST DOESNT GET IT. We dont even have money for FEMA.We have to find cuts to aid the recovery effort from Irene,and this guy wants to waste even more money?
Reagan didnt spend 2 years blaming Carter.Reagan was also handed a crappy economy by Carter. The WSJ tells otherwise: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't. If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama. The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus. By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight. My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't. The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy. The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down. The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come." The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP. Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump." Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter's economic malpractice? Fast-forward to today. Mr. Obama is running deficits of $1.3 trillion, or 8%-9% of GDP. If the Reagan deficits powered the '80s expansion, the Obama deficits—twice as large—should have the U.S. sprinting at Olympic speed. The left has now embraced a new theory to explain why the Obama spending hasn't worked. The answer is contained in the book "This Time Is Different," by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Published in 2009, the book examines centuries of recessions and depressions world-wide. The authors conclude that it takes nations much longer—six years or more—to recover from financial crises and the popping of asset bubbles than from typical recessions. In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown. There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs. But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us? Our monetary policies are too (*)(*)(*)(*) loose.The Feds should raise the interest by atleast 1%.Obama is doing the opposite of what Reagan did and that he is RAISING the regulatory hurdles,and hes tightening restraints on businesses and investments,and instead of cutting taxes ,he wants to raise them.That will be disastrous.Hes the most anti-business president we have ever had.
Quarter - % chng real GDP annualized 1980q4 +7.4% 1981q1 +8.3% <- Reagan takes office in Jan. Source data: BEA.gov You think Obama would have loved to have inherited "crappy" economic growth like that? I'm sure you can find lots of Murdoch propaganda media saying otherwise. These are facts: Obama vs. Reagan - (Jun 1983/2011 - 30 months into office) Unemployment: Reagan at this point in his presidency had a 2.6 percentage point increase in unemployment. Obama has had a 1.4 percentage point increase in unemployment. and the Deficit: Reagan had $46 billion, 64% increase in the deficit in his first full fiscal year Obama had a $179.5 billion, 11.5% decrease in the deficit in his first full fiscal year. and the stock market: Reagan: A 30% increase in the Dow at this point in his presidency Obama: A 55% increase in the Dow at this point in his presidency and GDP: Reagan had a 4.4 percentage point worsening in GDP growth to -1.9% growth in his second year. Obama had a 5.5 percentage point improvement in GDP to 2.9% growth in his second year. People can decide for themselves what the facts say.
Because they allowed the Republicans to create the tax policy that favored investment over productivity. So it's all the Democrats fault. DUH!
You missed the point entirely. I didn't say debt doesn't matter at all. I said debt doesn't matter in coming out of a recession. Because the longer you stay in a recession the more you add to the debt. There is no stimulus plan that would cost more than it costs to do nothing and stay in a recession. If we had passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus like economists were suggesting then it would have cost less than what we did do and pass a mediocre stimulus and create a slow recovery. The reason I said debt doesn't matter is because of that price difference. Stimulus bills cost less than letting a recession play it's course. Especially a recession as deep as this one.
If you look at the info from some of the studies I provided earlier regarding GDP growth when debt is over 90% of GDP, the GDP of those countries rarely if ever goes about 2% growth. When you have that little growth its near impossible to recover from deep recessions. Especially if like those studies show borrowing more has a negative impact on GDP growth. There is a point where the money you spend from borrowing is counterproductive and won't do enough to get one out of the hole.
All the more reason to get out of the recession faster through stimulus programs than allow our debt to get any higher. Again. Stimulus programs add less to the debt than allowing recessionary spending to continue for more than 2 years. If unemployment weren't so high our deficit would easily be cut by at least 1/3rd and maybe even 1/2
Obama had his chance to spend his way of the recession. He has spent trillions without moving the numbers enough to even notice. So I'm not going let him throw good money after bad.
When Obama took office, the economy was losing about 700,000 jobs a month. The private sector has gained over 5 million new jobs since Jan 2010. That's a noticeable move in my book. But I'm not invested in failure for political purposes.
