Forum Post: The Obama Recovery versus the Reagan Recovery...
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 17, 2012, 9:46 p.m. EST by nebsdad
(-2)
from Newark, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This pretty much says it all...
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=ISS23c_121017.png&docId=629544
Economy: Michelle Obama recently described this recovery as "huge." Maybe she forgot what decade it is. The Reagan recovery in the '80s was huge. But the one her husband's policies have given us? Not so much.
A Washington, D.C., hip-hop station host asked Michelle to "in your words, tell us what you think the state of the union is in right now?"
Her answer: "I mean, we are seeing right now that we are in the midst of a huge recovery. Right? Because of what this president has done."
We wholeheartedly agree with the first lady that the current state of the economy is the result of "what this president has done."
But to call Obama's recovery — which started just five months after he took office and is now in its 40th month — "huge" shows just how detached from reality the White House has become.
Obama's policies have produced a smaller economic recovery than any since World War II. This recovery is so small that only half the jobs lost in the recession have been recouped. It's so small that there are almost half a million more long-term unemployed today than in June 2009, and millions have dropped out of the labor force altogether.
The Obama recovery is so small that median household incomes have been steadily falling since it started, and there are 11 million more people on food stamps and 2.7 million more mired in poverty.
Indeed, had Obama's recovery merely been average, there would be about 8 million more people with jobs today, and the GDP would be $1.2 trillion bigger.
If you want to see what a really huge recovery looks like, take a look at the one President Reagan oversaw. He entered office in January 1981 amid an economy mired in malaise, with inflation out of control, unemployment high and rising, a decade-long energy crisis and sky-high interest rates.
And in July 1981, just one year after the previous downturn ended, the economy fell into another recession that lasted almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months) and sent the unemployment rate higher than the one Obama inherited.
But Reagan's combination of permanent, across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation and domestic spending restraint helped produce a massive recovery.
Obama, in contrast, has gone in almost precisely the opposite direction — temporary, targeted tax cuts; huge new spending; vast new regulations — and he threatens more of the same, plus a $1 trillion tax hike, if he were to get a second term.
We hope Mrs. Obama will pardon us for saying this, but after seeing what "this president has done" to the economy, we can only hope he doesn't get the chance to do any more.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101612-629544-michelle-obama-wrong-on-huge-recovery-.htm
Regan debunked
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
right.
we are trying to come exit from a depression and things are different now, and congress isn't working together: 1 in a different economy, robots and Chineese workers replace American workers, 2 we were in a great depression caused by banker stupidity and greed of the 1 percent.
You should read the October 11 Rolling Stone article by Tim Dickinson "Who's Driving Mitt?"
the repubs have stopped the 2 million jobs creation bill that would not add to debt, but get paid for with end to Bush tax breaks for millionaires, bring rate from 35 to 39 percent on excess income, and put the money to use. all these people, who are racists, would rather see the American economy and people suffer, rather than spur the middle class through wage growth and job creation.
read some history and you will understand a bit better why things are this way and what we should do about it.
www.voterocky.org
and reagan raised taxes 8 times, if I recall, and expanded military spending.
we cant afford that now http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/
In 1981, Reagan's first year, the top tax rate was 70 percent, hitting individuals earning $108,300 and couples earning $215,400. The top rate dropped immediately to 50 percent in 1982 and stayed there through 1986. In 1987, the top rate fell again to 38.5 percent, and in 1988, it fell to 28 percent, kicking in at $17,850 for married individuals and $29,750 for married couples. (The 1988 incomes would be equivalent to $33,229 and $55,382 today.)
So, for one year of the Reagan presidency, the top rate was lower than it is now under Obama. For the other seven years, it was higher.
Shame on you. The facts tell an entirely different story.
If one looks at returns in the stock market, months of recession, average unemployment, inflation, income inequality, industrial production and after-tax corporate profits, Obama outperforms in all of these categories compared to Reagan’s first term.
President Obama should be applauded for the results of his first term as steward of our economy and the applause should come from both sides of the aisle.
Reagan vs Obama Economics
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2012/reagan-vs-obama-economy-market-numbers/#aDB54PfazSsbM6Ty.99
finally the most recent crisis occured because of many of the laws passed during the Reagan Era.
The Reagan era policies ended with the savings and loans crisis, the biggest stock market crash in US history( 1987 ), poverty rates faired worse in 80-90 reccesions when compared to (1965-1978 ), and finally the Reagan Recession that occured during the early 80's was purposely created by the Fed in order to cool the economy.
not surprising. Obama's economic numbers are brutal. He's clueless
Not exactly. Many Americans are clueless.
Many conservative economic pundits, including Republican nominee Mitt Romney, have been staking the claim that the Obama Presidency has been an economic calamity. They don’t allow the facts to interfere with their political rhetoric. If it sounds good it must be good. Not!
The facts do not support such rhetoric; Romney and other conservative politicos are absolutely off the mark. If we compare Barack Obama’s first term to conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s first term, the Obama administration outperforms Reagan’s on most key economic measures.
Many Americans are too young to remember, or perhaps have forgotten, how frenetic President Reagan’s first term was.
Reagan Worst President Ever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1ePD_Hi_w
Reagan vs Obama
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2012/reagan-vs-obama-economy-market-numbers/
Yep.
What has always amazed me is this one phrase: "nobody knows why."
Reagan introduced welfare reform; welfare spending increased, no one knows why...
Oil gluts result in higher oil prices, no one knows why...
Those that compile statistics are the least informed; no one knows why.
Hindsight lends insight, which fails us, no one knows why.
No one, ever, knows why.
why? I'll ask why?
is it because the 1 percent have figured a way to secretly leach it all up?
and pretend they're just average americans seeking the american dream?
They are very good at that but investment profit is not "economy." We are discussing "economy" - what happens on top has absolutely nothing to do with what we do on the bottom - the world is our oyster, and economy is a direct extension of self - you will either impart a negative or a positive - and together we will have an "economy."