Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no problem with what Volker did.
What I have a problem is you lying about the UE rate under Reagan. Once again, Reagan ENDED his Presidency with a good UE rate - but the vast majority of his 2 terms was spent with VERY HIGH unemployment.
It should also be pointed out that by mid-1983 the inflation rate had been reduced to as low as 2.5% - but the UE rate remained at 7% or more for nearly 3 MORE YEARS.
At THIS POINT in Reagan's Presidency the UE rate was at 7.3% (right now under Obama it's at 7.5%) - and A YEAR LATER it was STILL over 7% (at 7.2% to be precise) - so his record in regards to the UE rate is pretty darn similar to Obama's.
Of course, you ignore that Reagan also had to battle inflation. Which he managed to do while also lowering the UE rate. Reagan did a much better job with the misery index.
Of course, you ignore that Reagan also had to battle inflation. Which he managed to do while also lowering the UE rate. Reagan did a much better job with the misery index.
Sure Reagan had HUGE challenges - as does Obama. Reagan had to deal with inflation, while Obama is faced with much stiffer competition for jobs from overseas than Reagan ever faced.
Sure Reagan had HUGE challenges - as does Obama. Reagan had to deal with inflation, while Obama is faced with much stiffer competition for jobs from overseas than Reagan ever faced.
Ken
Will not disagree with that. Personally, I believe President's get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go bad.
Of course, you ignore that Reagan also had to battle inflation. Which he managed to do while also lowering the UE rate. Reagan did a much better job with the misery index.
Also, GDP growth was much higher under Reagan than Obama.
Popularity. Despite EVERYTHING seemingly going on around him he still remaained PERSONALLY popular with the American Public. There are going to be three things needed now to impeach AND CONVICT a president in an impeachment trial. They are (in no order) a bad economy, presidential unpopularity(of the personal kind) and DIRECT EVIDENCE(AKA a smoking gun) that directly ties the president to the charges. Nixon had all three while in the case of Regan you had one(his own speech admiting arms were traded for hostages). Regan could of been(and some people say) he SHOULD have been impeached and CONVICETD(and removed from office) for the selling of arms to Iran as selling arms to a sworn enemy is pretty serious isn't it?
If he was president now with the media being what it is today, he would have been impeached. Some of the things he did, supporting guerilla's in Nicaragua while he supported a brutal government in El Salvador, still hard to believe he mined the harbors of Nicaragua. He still remained popular no matter what, the voters loved him.
If he was president now with the media being what it is today, he would have been impeached. Some of the things he did, supporting guerilla's in Nicaragua while he supported a brutal government in El Salvador, still hard to believe he mined the harbors of Nicaragua. He still remained popular no matter what, the voters loved him.
Also, GDP growth was much higher under Reagan than Obama.
Sure it was - because back the we didn't have the cheap foreign competition we have today - nor did we have the technological ability to have work done overseas and have it be managed from here (ie we didn't have the INTERNET). It's a different world today than it was back then - and today the US has far fewer advantages over foreign nations than it used to have. Back Third World nations didn't have either the talent nor the infrastructure in place to compete with the US for manufacturing jobs and other type (such as help lines etc). Today, they DO.
I have no problem with what Volker did.
What I have a problem is you lying about the UE rate under Reagan. Once again, Reagan ENDED his Presidency with a good UE rate - but the vast majority of his 2 terms was spent with VERY HIGH unemployment.
It should also be pointed out that by mid-1983 the inflation rate had been reduced to as low as 2.5% - but the UE rate remained at 7% or more for nearly 3 MORE YEARS.
At THIS POINT in Reagan's Presidency the UE rate was at 7.3% (right now under Obama it's at 7.5%) - and A YEAR LATER it was STILL over 7% (at 7.2% to be precise) - so his record in regards to the UE rate is pretty darn similar to Obama's.
When Reagan took office there were 99,955,000 people employed.
When Reagan left office there were 116,708,000 people employed.
That's a 16.7% increase.
What will Obama's 8 years look like?
When Obama took office there were 142,153,000 people employed.
If the last month of Obama's term ends with 166 million people employed they will be equal.
Last month there were 143,898,000 people employed.
So, under Obama, will 22 million more people be employed? That's 500,000 people a month from now until Jan. 2017.
Yeah, I didn't think so. You know damn well your use of the UE rate is deceptive and for the very same reasons you saw UE rate tick up after adding 175,000 with the past BLS report the UE rate ticked up during the Reagan administration's first term. People started looking for work again.
Just because you believe your own BS doesn't mean others have to.
So who wants to come out and say something stupid like "but Obama was losing jobs when he took office?"
When Reagan took office there were 99,955,000 people employed.
When Reagan left office there were 116,708,000 people employed.
That's a 16.7% increase.
What will Obama's 8 years look like?
When Obama took office there were 142,153,000 people employed.
If the last month of Obama's term ends with 166 million people employed they will be equal.
Last month there were 143,898,000 people employed.
So, under Obama, will 22 million more people be employed? That's 500,000 people a month from now until Jan. 2017.
Yeah, I didn't think so. You know damn well your use of the UE rate is deceptive and for the very same reasons you saw UE rate tick up after adding 175,000 with the past BLS report the UE rate ticked up during the Reagan administration's first term. People started looking for work again.
Just because you believe your own BS doesn't mean others have to.
So who wants to come out and say something stupid like "but Obama was losing jobs when he took office?"
He WAS "losing jobs" - to the tune of 700,000+/month.
That's what HAPPENS when you step into office during the greatest economic collapse in DECADES.
What LIE is that?
So WHY is the use of the UE rate "deceptive"? - because you don't LIKE what it SAYS? - it IS what it IS. You folks jump all over Obama for having a 7+% UE rate at this stage, but you give Reagan a PASS for virtually the IDENTICAL UE rate at the same point in his Presidency?
For most of Reagan's 8 years the economy was TERRIBLE - first with high inflation (which he inherited) and then LATER with an ungodly high UE rate (which lingered for more than THREE YEARS after inflation had been tamed). He ENDED on a high note, but most of his 2 terms wasn't that way.
Those are FACTS - pure and simple.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-07-2013 at 12:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
