General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReagan recovery vs Obama recovery
The right wing is comparing the jobs recovery of Ronald Reagan to the jobs recovery of Barack Obama as a way to show that Reagan's policies were much better. And they say that Reagan's recession was worse than Obama's because unemployment went up to 10.4%. However, they say, at the same time in the recovery, Reagan was creating many more jobs. They cite this as evidence of the failure of Obama's policies and the success of Reagan's policies. No doubt, the Reagan recession was very serious.
However, the two economic downturns were as different as night and day. With the Reagan recession, we were recovering from the first oil shocks and embargoes and the first wave of inflation to hit our country in a long time. This was also left over from the spending of the Vietnam War. Reagan and the Republicans blamed Jimmy Carter but Nixon and Ford did nothing to prevent or to cushion the inflation blow, other than to print out WIN buttons. It was a severe recession.
But with the "Obama recession", which really began before he took office also, it was deeper and worldwide in its scope. It was on a depression level, with the collapse of the banks and the bubble bursting on the housing market, like none we had seen in our lifetimes. We were in dire straits. In many ways, we are still there. We have never recovered.
History will likely record that Barack Obama saved the capitalist system just as much as FDR did, or maybe even moreso, and prevented the nation from sliding into a deep depression with 20% unemployment. We are actually very, very lucky to only have 8.3% unemployment at this time. Obama inherited a much more dangerous economic downturn than did Ronald Reagan, there is little doubt.
Unfortunately, the President did not do a good job communicating the depth of the problem to the country or the time it might take to recover from the depression. Perhaps they underestimated the severity of the problem or they did not want to put too much of a negative spin on the disastrous situation we were in?
Regardless, the Republicans are now able to spin the economy as a failure on Obama's part by comparing it to Reagan at the same time in his recovery. In hindsight, it may have been better to have informed and warned the people from the beginning that this would take more than one term to fix? Perhaps it would have been better to move people's expectations a little more slowly?
Now, the Republicans are taking advantage of the slow recovery by saying that it is a failure of the Obama Administration. It didn't have to be this way.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Use one of their crazy ideas back at them.
the first two years of Obama presidency democrats controlled both houses
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)The Republicans prevented almost everything Obama wanted to do with filibusters and we had Lieberman, among others, helping them.
Right wingers have been eager to claim the successful economy under Clinton by pointing to the Republican control of the House during some of his tenure conveniently forgetting about the Gingrich shutdown of the government.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)You expect the Dems to clean up that pile of shit overnight?
See ya' Sparky.
rock
(13,218 posts)and then got out with a shovel to dig it deeper.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)People neglect to mention how bad things were at the end of the bu$h regimes attacks on our economy.
bulloney
(4,113 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Really?
Enjoy your brief stay.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, its down by 2.7 percent.
Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, theyre down by 2.6 percent.
And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=3&hpnt.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)The Republicans war against "government" at all levels is having a dramatic negative impact on our economy at all levels.
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)th Democratic Congress of Reagan's day was far more concerned about the American public, and their suffering than the present day Republicans.. the thought of inflicting suffering onte American public, would not be tolerated by Democrats like Tip O'neal ... alas, Boener is no O'neal
Response to kentuck (Original post)
oldhippydude This message was self-deleted by its author.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)... He inherited a two-year surplus and THEN created the most massive economic disaster in the history of our country. That's what Obama got stuck with.
kentuck
(111,053 posts)Obama should have been reminding the people of this every day. He should not have let the Republicans get away with pretending this was just like any other recession. It was not. They put us in a hole so deep that it may take us 20 frigging years to dig out of it. We are not going to recover in 3 or 4 years. We need them to stop blocking everything and work to get this economy going again. That should have been the message from the beginning. There should have been no doubts about who got us into this mess. I fear we may pay a severe price by not having this message.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)bhikkhu
(10,713 posts)throughout the recession, including oil. High commodity prices in themselves tend to tip things toward recession, and the difference in market conditions between then and now is a complete paradigm change - one side of the slope of a mega-trend versus the other side.
Comparing one time with another assumes all things are equal, which they certainly are not, in more than one way. Not that the republicans would really care anyway, but romney has no plan whatsoever to address the real issues.