Unempoyment rate June 2006 compared to June 2009 (Barack Obama, companies, dollars, parties)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Fleet

And when Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5%. Inflation was 13% when he took office and under 5% when he left. Interest rates were 20+% and under 12% when he left office. THAT is why he is widely credited with fixing the economy.

The fact is Reagan left the elder Bush with a very good economy.

And your statement supports the fact that it's too early to judge Obama. Who knows where we'll be in 3 1/2 years, or even a year from now.

Thank goodness the anti-Obama crowd on this forum does not represent the majority of Americans.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The unemployment rate began to fall the first month that Clinton took office, and then continued to drop until the first month Bush took office.

Economies do rise and fall under both Republicans and Democrats. The lengths to which some people go to ignore this fact is astonishing to me.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

G.W. Bush inherited an economy headed toward a recession and became an actual recession in March, 2001.

Bush wisely passed a tax cut and even with the terrible 9/11 terrorist attacks, the recession ended in Nov., 2001.

Clinton did not inherit a recession.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

And your statement supports the fact that it's too early to judge Obama. Who knows where we'll be in 3 1/2 years, or even a year from now.

Thank goodness the anti-Obama crowd on this forum does not represent the majority of Americans.

I agree it is too early to judge Obama.

But with his massive overspending and tax increases (cleverly disguised) I don't expect much with Obama.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Clinton did not inherit a recession.

That doesn't negate the fact that the economy grew and the unemployment rate went down while Clinton was president, starting with his first month in office.

The suggestion that the economy always gets better under Republicans and always gets worse under Democrats is simply false. No amount of whining and tantrum-throwing can change the data. My statement isn't directed solely to you, Fleet; I'm addressing it to everyone who is having a fit over Obama.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by delusianne

Obama isnt permanently "taking over" the banks, auto industry or health care. Before the financial crisis became one of the McCain and Obama campaign issues in summer 2008 Obama never indicated he was interested in getting involved with "taking over" any industries, sectors, etc.

And you believe what Obama says?!? LOL!

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

That doesn't negate the fact that the economy grew and the unemployment rate went down while Clinton was president, starting with his first month in office.

The economy was still recovering and rebounding following the early-'90s recession which ended in March, 1991.

I wouldn't really give credit to Clinton... what did he do?

[monkeywrenching]

how long til unemployment is at 20% at the rate that pbo is going?

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Fleet

I wouldn't really give credit to Clinton... what did he do?

This gives a good summary of the economy under Bill Clinton:

Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[padcrasher]

Democrats are bad for jobs! ..................Just look at this graph.

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mas...job-growth.png

[saganista]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Sigh, like all lefties you are the keeper of the facts and any evidence that disagrees with your point of view is loony.

No, actual evidence to the contrary would be quite interesting. Sadly, none of your various posts fell into that category.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Bush didn't benefit because the tech bubble burst.

How convenient. When did that happen exactly? What indicators of bubble-bursting could be pointed to?

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Cut taxes revenues rise, happened under Kennedy, happened under Reagan happened under Bush.

Maybe, wrong, and wrong. Models of the 1960's do show a slight and delayed gain in revenues after JFK's tax cuts. Might have been the tax cuts against the background of pent-up demand resulting from Eisenhower's three recessions. Might have been something else as well. No such effect at all after Reagan's tax cuts, and none after Bush's tax cuts either. There is no other evidence outside the scant evidence of the 60's at all. Only kooks actually believe in the effect. Here are some statements on the matter. All of the sources were officials during the Bush-43 administration...

Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.

Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist...
Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.

Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.

Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Failure does have a downside especially when market forces are ignored. The auto companies should have been allowed to fail so their resources could be used more efficiently (speaking of buggy whips) now we are pouring money down a rat hole.

By freeing up resources, you mean creating three million unemployed people, I take it. Does your economic acumen suggest that this would have been healthy for an already struggling economy? What do you think a sudden collapse of the Big Three would have done for confidence and expectations? Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by shorebaby

How is forcing healthy companies i.e. Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley to take bailout money an attempt to contain a crisis.?

LOL. None of these companies was remotely healthy. Their imminent failures would only have sent ripples of further failure coursing across the global economy. Describe for us the effects of letting tiny Lehman Brothers go.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Anyone who believes healthcare costs will be reduced due to UHC are delusional. The costs do not magically disappear, insuring 46 million extra people will erase any savings realized by taking insurance profits out. Congress realizes it will cost at least $1 trillion .

Those are transition costs and there will be more of those of course. Single-payer UHC would be a huge cost-saver, which is why you hear so much about even a tiny public option being a threat to drive the private sector out of business. What's the matter? They can't compete or something? But we won't go there in one fell swoop. A gentle transition that doesn't step on anybody's toes too badly. And at the end of the day, the disastrous system of today will be gone.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Yes I know UCLA and Penn are full of loonies. This may help explain our friends anger and sarcasm.

No, they aren't full of loonies, but they do have their share. The FDR revisionists have no better case than what Bush had for WMD. Read some actual criticism for a change.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Check out the tone of the posters response, again these are the folks we are dealing with present an alternate view and you are crazy or stupid.

Depends on the nature of the alternate view. Yours is a hallucination.

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Note also defense of notions like cap and trade, when presented with real life example of what happened (Spain) the poster can only resort to sarcasm. All he has left. So sad.

No sarcasm. The entire point of Cap & Trade is to redirect resources so as to create a cleaner, more efficient, more durable, less dependent energy base for the economy to function on. Babbling naysayers offer nothing. Jobs will be lost in the process and jobs will be gained. Just as job losses in the buggy-whip and blacksmith trades were offset by job gains in the automotive and related industries. That point seemed to lie beyond your grasp last time. Maybe it will sink in this time.