What specific actions are you attributing to Reagan as opposed to the "dimlibs" who controlled Congress? The tax increases and deficit spending? Those were obviously principally motivated by a Democratic Congress.
For my money the only way to bail out our deficit is a balanced approach that includes limited tax increases (you know, the kind Reagan repeatedly signed off on), but the Tea Party members in the House won't allow any of that. I am ambivalent about President Obama but to blame him exclusively for the state of the economy is completely misguided and overly simplistic.
Peak spending under Reagan was 23.5% of GDP with a 6% deficit.Reagan spent money like a drunk'in sailor to bring us out of the Recession we were in.
It wasn't. grandarachnid07 punched it up in his strawman generator.
Peak spending under Reagan was 23.5% of GDP with a 6% deficit.
Obama is sitting at 25+% of GDP with a 10% deficit.
Peak spending under Reagan was 23.5% of GDP with a 6% deficit.
Obama is sitting at 25+% of GDP with a 10% deficit.
Because historically a mix of tax increases and spending cuts means tax increases with no spending cuts. Put tax increases on equal footing with spending cuts - we'll cut taxes, but not as much as we want to cut them so it's actually a tax increase - and I suspect the Tea Party will be all over them.What specific actions are you attributing to Reagan as opposed to the "dimlibs" who controlled Congress? The tax increases and deficit spending? Those were obviously principally motivated by a Democratic Congress.
For my money the only way to bail out our deficit is a balanced approach that includes limited tax increases (you know, the kind Reagan repeatedly signed off on, and that Warren Buffet is calling for), but the Tea Party members in the House won't allow any discussion of that. I am ambivalent about President Obama but to blame him exclusively for the state of the economy is completely misguided and overly simplistic.
Reagan hit his low point earlier in his term though.In fairness Reagan's approval ratings were even lower in his first term.
Reagan also passed a huge tax cut.What specific actions are you attributing to Reagan as opposed to the "dimlibs" who controlled Congress? The tax increases and deficit spending? Those were obviously principally motivated by a Democratic Congress.
For my money the only way to bail out our deficit is a balanced approach that includes limited tax increases (you know, the kind Reagan repeatedly signed off on, and that Warren Buffet is calling for), but the Tea Party members in the House won't allow any discussion of that. I am ambivalent about President Obama but to blame him exclusively for the state of the economy is completely misguided and overly simplistic.
Reagan hit his low point earlier in his term though.
Jan 83.
Obama is hitting it 8 months later and as of yet there is no sign that things are going to turn around.
Obama's big problem is unemployment isn't dropping. When Reagan hit bottom unemployment was 10.4%, but 18 months later it was 7.2%. A 3 point drop in 18 months.
Obama's peak unemployment was 10.1% and that was 20 months ago. We've only lost 1 point in that time frame.
At this point Obama is probably screwed. Reagan had a 7.2% rate on election day 1984 and that is the highest anyone has had won re-election. Ford lost at 7.8 and Bush 41 lost at 7.4. And keep in mind that Reagan's 3 point drop was due to an 8% growth in GDP for the year. That is an insane growth rate and we haven't seen anything close to that since then.
Reagan hit his low point earlier in his term though.
Jan 83.
Obama is hitting it 8 months later and as of yet there is no sign that things are going to turn around.
Obama's big problem is unemployment isn't dropping. When Reagan hit bottom unemployment was 10.4%, but 18 months later it was 7.2%. A 3 point drop in 18 months.
Obama's peak unemployment was 10.1% and that was 20 months ago. We've only lost 1 point in that time frame.
At this point Obama is probably screwed. Reagan had a 7.2% rate on election day 1984 and that is the highest anyone has had won re-election. Ford lost at 7.8 and Bush 41 lost at 7.4. And keep in mind that Reagan's 3 point drop was due to an 8% growth in GDP for the year. That is an insane growth rate and we haven't seen anything close to that since then.
Reagan hit his low point earlier in his term though.
Jan 83.
Obama is hitting it 8 months later and as of yet there is no sign that things are going to turn around.
Obama's big problem is unemployment isn't dropping. When Reagan hit bottom unemployment was 10.4%, but 18 months later it was 7.2%. A 3 point drop in 18 months.
Obama's peak unemployment was 10.1% and that was 20 months ago. We've only lost 1 point in that time frame.
At this point Obama is probably screwed. Reagan had a 7.2% rate on election day 1984 and that is the highest anyone has had won re-election. Ford lost at 7.8 and Bush 41 lost at 7.4. And keep in mind that Reagan's 3 point drop was due to an 8% growth in GDP for the year. That is an insane growth rate and we haven't seen anything close to that since then.
You disappoint me with you lack of history knowledge... remember the cold war?Taxation was also considerably higher, particularly after his tax increases. Want to pull up the numbers on that while you're consulting the CBO or wherever you're getting this information? Moreover, unlike Obama, Reagan did not inherit two active wars when he took office.
The real difference between Reagan and Obama is the amount of social spending. It has gone through the roof over the last two decades.
Human resources
1980's 11-12%
1990's 11-12%
2000-2008 11-13% and that 13 was for one year, 2008
2009 15.3%
2010 16.4% of GDP
That is our problem. We have increases spending in that category by $600 billion in 3 years.
FDR would certainly be an exception to the rule.Not true FDR won with a much higher rate, historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a presidents performance at the next election has been essentially zero.
I am just point out the facts.Hey guys look! Pro-Jo is predicting Republican victory!
This is a startling change from his usual position of always predicting Republican victory.
You disappoint me with you lack of history knowledge... remember the cold war?
Nobody was dying, but it was a lot more expensive than what we are dealing with right now.
FDR would certainly be an exception to the rule.
But otherwise there certainly is some correlation.
Generally if unemployment is higher on election day than it was when you took office you are screwed. Unless unemployment is dropping fast, as happened under Reagan.
What happened under FDR shouldn't even be considered. That was before TV and the 24 hour news cycle. Things have changed so much with so many details and every decision and movement by the President being reported the next day.
I am just point out the facts.
Unless Obama can drop unemployment by at least a point between now and next year he is toast.
There is no way he wins re-election sitting at 39% approval.
History tells us that anyone with unemployment above 8% loses (except FDR)
And anyone with approval below 48% loses.
Right now Obama is on the wrong side of both measures.
Everyone said the same thing about Bush.Perry is the one who kind of spooks me because he strikes me as a dope and a religious zealot, and I think he'd just make matters worse in all respects. We shall see . . .
Actually I think it was the number of soldiers we had back then that helped the economy so much. Plus we were building ships and tanks and all kinds of other stuff that helped the economy.Obviously I am aware of the cold war - I'm 40 years old - but honestly I didn't know the relative percentage of DOD spending in the 1980s relative to today. I will say that those costs probably yielded more economic and employment benefit than our current DOD spending, since a lot of them involved ploughing a lot of money into the private sector (for ICBMs, cluster bombs, and $200 toilet seats) relative to the billions we are spending today.
Everyone said the same thing about Bush.
And Reagan was a warmonger who was going to start WW 3.
And Clinton was a womanizer.
And Obama hung out with terrorists and had an anti-American pastor etc etc.
Generally none of that side show stuff had any effect on their terms. (other than the Clinton/Monica debacle)
There are those who claim that Obama's problems are related to his anti-American views and friends etc, but I think they are more related to the fact that he just doesn't "get it" when it comes to economics and business.
BTW Perry/Romney would be a good ticket. Strong successful governor with a strong VP with a history of success as a businessman. Plus adding a mormon to the ticket would show that Perry is not a total religious nut job and that he values peoples views and ideas more than their religion.
Everyone said the same thing about Bush.
And Reagan was a warmonger who was going to start WW 3.
And Clinton was a womanizer.
And Obama hung out with terrorists and had an anti-American pastor etc etc.
Generally none of that side show stuff had any effect on their terms. (other than the Clinton/Monica debacle)
There are those who claim that Obama's problems are related to his anti-American views and friends etc, but I think they are more related to the fact that he just doesn't "get it" when it comes to economics and business.
BTW Perry/Romney would be a good ticket. Strong successful governor with a strong VP with a history of success as a businessman. Plus adding a mormon to the ticket would show that Perry is not a total religious nut job and that he values peoples views and ideas more than their religion.