General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEven Big Business’s Mouthpiece Admits It: “Republican” Policies Suck.
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/even-big-businesss-mouthpiece-admits-it-republican-policies-suck/Source info at the link, of course:
When Forbes , of all magazines, says Obama kicks Reagans ass, or words to that effect, you know that the Supply-Siders are totally f***ed. And that they suck dead elephant d***s. And are too f***ing stupid to realize how stupid they are.
But Big Business follows data, and data proves that Voodoo Economics is a giant, stinking heap of dinosaur bollocks:
Bob Deitrick: President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this Great Recession.
As this unemployment chart shows, President Obamas job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite todays number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
Big businesses may not like Obama, but they (unlike brain-dead ideologues like Ted Cruz) can read a balance sheet. They know that good old-fashioned math-based accounting proves that supply-side economics is deader than a doorknob. So too do most normal Americans.
Why, then, does our nation persist in its apparent infatuation with such a bankrupt ideology? Simple: the Teabaggers who are dumb enough to buy the voodoo potion turn out and vote; and the precious few in the business world who are profiting by the Reagan-era policies spend lots of money buying elections for ideologues like Ted F***ing Cruz.
Sad to say, mere facts and common sense matter litlle when politics rears its ugly head. This writer hopes that you, Gentle Reader, will at least consider facts when you express opinions and cast ballots. The same facts that even the Repubs at Forbes are acknowledging.
merrily
(45,251 posts)FSogol
(45,527 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Such constancy is almost always a result of a deliberate and planned program resulting from an overall policy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)A GOP strategy, maybe. A policy for the nation, no.
riqster
(13,986 posts)No, their policy is to accrete power, wealth and control for themselves and those who have bought them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Corporations and organizations of all sorts have policies. Shit, most venues at which I perform have policies that are set out in contract or posted backstage.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)So to compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan & Obama,
I'd like to know which equation they are using.
Between Reagan and Obama, I think Clinton changed the way the unemployment
numbers are figured.
6.1% unemployment for Obama might be higher than Reagan's 7.1%, if the
current numbers are applied to the equation that was used under Reagan.
This is good news if the numbers hold up, but I'd like to see Apples to Apples, in this case.
merrily
(45,251 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I will doublecheck but when I read this I think they both used U3.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)the name may be the same but the equations could have been changed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[35]
35: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf in particular see page 4 of the .pdf which is listed on the bottom of that page as page #23. The change to U3 is almost negligible. Most of the calculation changes came to U5 and U6
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)I love being able to bring St. Ronnie down a few pegs
with my conservative friends.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)freebrew
(1,917 posts)Clinton got us out of it. * got us back into it(debt) and now Obama's getting us back out.
Reagan was an idiot. And he's the economic president?
Slight of hand, done with mirrors. Oh, and a great big stinking heap of propaganda by the M$M.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Are the Mega Rich looking to the future and seeing this possible story. Democratic administrations produce balanced budgets and surpluses,while Rethugs have only budgets based on debt. Most wealthy folks love their clipping coupons on their bonds. Our Nation has a real problem coming at it in the scenario of debt service,and with the disparity of wages and zero wage growth,debt service could collapse and then. The shit storm will come. Just walk through the Malls,over priced crap with teen and tweener focus,most of the younger crowd don't have a clue. As mom and dad supports their habits fine,but,it appears that story has hit a wall and the biggees are nervous,notice all those recently empty spaces. What is really telling is the opening of new retail spaces in the very upscale neighborhoods. Same trend in the early 1980's and you know what Bushie 1 did. The rich have made tons off of us minions during Liberal administrations and they know it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Business will shift to Dems if nothing changes. Better for the bottom line.
davekriss
(4,627 posts)Well, that's a nice try at revisionist history. The deep recession of 1981/1982, which resulted in unemployment peaking at 10.8% (the high water mark since the Great Depression, iirc), was not "oil-induced". It was a direct result of Paul Volcker's Federal Reserve's decision to wring out inflation, which was injuring the position of the Creditor Class, fighting against Ronald Reagan's Keynesian tax cuts and bloated military budgets. To achieve the inflation-taming results Volcker wanted, real interest rates had to rise to records not seen before or since (Carter holds the record for nominal rates, which is the sum of real rates plus inflation - Reagan's real rates far surpassed Carter's).
The 1981/1982 recession was the first blast of the class war ushered in by dear old Ronald Reagan, a war that has been hollowing out America ever since.