Obama better than Reagan in terms of the economy?

[djAdvocate]

Forbes says so:

www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

here is the concluding remark:

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

don't blame the messenger for this one people.  and don't blame liberal rags like Huffington, either.  this came from a flag ship of conservative economics, and well known Democrat stomper.

comments?

[tallguy]

Reagan has always been extremely over-rated.  His best qualities were that he looked and sounded presidential.  His policies were disastrous.  An awful lot of people are apparently happy and satisfied that he made them "feel good."  Some of us expect more....  

[billisonboard]

Creditor nations can sometimes lose their status and become debtor nations. This happened to the United States in 1988 when its balance of payments turned negative. www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditor_nation.asp

Can you imagine if this was the legacy of seven years under Obama?

[b2r]

     www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/ 

This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.

The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency.


1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009.

[happyhoix]

Reagan was an actor who had developed his pleasant, all American cowboy image years before he ran for office. People found him friendly and folksy and remember him fondly, but don't remember as clearly his policies. They remember the dramatic 'tear down this wall' part, but not how the economy faired under him. If he stepped into office in an economy that was in a tailspin, like Obama did, I doubt he would have done as well.

Obama isn't so folksy. Some of his actions, like fumbling to respond to a Marine salute with a coffee cup in his hand, get interpreted as arrogant. In the South, where I live, there is sometimes a racial tinge to the dislike, and I think that makes people forget just how bad the economy was, when he took office, and how successful his administration was in keeping our economy from dipping even lower than it did.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2014 22:54:15 GMT -5 b2r said:

     www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/ 

This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.

the article in question discusses WFP.  you can compare Obama and Reagan on the basis of EMPLOYMENT, and if you do, Obama is still 9.5% ahead of where Reagan was at this point in his term.

The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency.

this is cherry picking.  the economy has grown by 2%/year since the crash, or about the same as it did under W, if you discount the great recession.

1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009.

it is true that Obama's growth rates were slower than Reagans.  but it is also true that Bush's were slower than Clintons, etc:


so, yeah- i'll grant that the 70's, 80's, and 90's were better for GDP growth than the 21st century has been, so far.

[Value Buy]

BASED ON Obama's HEALTHCARE LAWLESSNESS, , he cannot be better than Reagan was. This froze corporate growth plans, as corporations had to sit back and waste a year to see what it would cost them, and plan accordingly, ie, 27, 28 hour rule for new employees, etc.

Obama has personally put the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic working middle class.

Strange that it happened and was planned by a Democrat, rather than the evil Republicans. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 25, 2014 10:35:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 24, 2014 22:54:15 GMT -5 b2r said:

     www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/ 

it is true that Obama's growth rates were slower than Reagans.  but it is also true that Bush's were slower than Clintons, etc:


so, yeah- i'll grant that the 70's, 80's, and 90's were better for GDP growth than the 21st century has been, so far.

 

Following the greatest peacetime economic expansion in our history to that point, Reagan's compromise with Democrats on the massive tax increase that was the TRA followed by the Bush 41 tax increase and an inevitable recession, and the initial Clinton leftward lurch- the attempt at HillaryCare, the tax increases, did slow and finally interrupt the boom.

But the success of the 1990's wasn't more moderation, and left wing policies-- that movement was abruptly halted, and ultimately reversed with the election of a Reaganesque conservative GOP congress with a bold plan- the Contract With America- to put the country back on the Reagan track in meaningful ways.  It was the boldest broad brush policy reform since Reagan's initial 1981 across-the-board tax cuts.

And Reagan's military spending can be equated to grocery shopping after "buy nothing month".  After years of drawing down the military, detante, and outright surrender to the Russians-- Reagan was tasked with rebuilding the military, modernizing the strategic deterrent, and actively confronting the Soviet threat.  So Carter doesn't get credit for the spending- but he should. Because Reagan largely just made up for Carter's failures.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 26, 2014 8:49:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

BASED ON Obama's HEALTHCARE LAWLESSNESS, , he cannot be better than Reagan was.

want to compare lawlessness?  let's count felony indictments.

Reagan = 138
Obama = 0?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 26, 2014 12:25:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 25, 2014 10:35:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is true that Obama's growth rates were slower than Reagans.  but it is also true that Bush's were slower than Clintons, etc:


so, yeah- i'll grant that the 70's, 80's, and 90's were better for GDP growth than the 21st century has been, so far.

 

Following the greatest peacetime economic expansion in our history to that point,

huh?  by what measure, Paul?  were you even alive in 1979? 

jesus.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 26, 2014 12:37:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 26, 2014 8:49:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

BASED ON Obama's HEALTHCARE LAWLESSNESS, , he cannot be better than Reagan was.

want to compare lawlessness?  let's count felony indictments.

Reagan = 138
Obama = 0?

Convictions?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 26, 2014 18:02:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 26, 2014 12:37:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

want to compare lawlessness?  let's count felony indictments.

Reagan = 138
Obama = 0?

Convictions?

21.  a number to be proud of.

[Value Buy]

dj, believe it or not, I found an old Chicago newspaper from January 2nd 1981 while cleaning out some old boxes.

There was an article on Reagan and whether he was being too tough on Russia with economic sanctions for Russia's Afghanistan campaign.

Not much different than today, with Obama and Russia and the Ukraine today, other than is Obama welling to get really tough.

The other article was a graph of Reagan announcements  and actual things that occurred for the year that affected the economy.

Reagan had two economic stimulant announcements to improve the economy that year. First one seem to help the stock market, second one, the market dropped.

What I found interesting was on the graph, the notation "prime rate topped out at 20%" Can you imagine what would happen to this country today if the prime came even close to that number?

I always remembered I thought that was under Jimmy Carter. Been wrong all these years.

I do not have the papers right now, as a relative has them to look at, and will not get them back for a week or so, but when I do, I will try to give all the highlights.

The politics and Presidential actions discussed in 1981 tracked very similar to what is going on today with the Presidency.

Things really do not change as much as we really think they do.

Also had a Los Angeles Times paper from January 1966. I was out there for the Rose Bowl (IU lost to S Cal 14 to 3)

It was  amazing how much the paper followed the Government line on Vietnam, just printing whatever the Government released for public consumption. In this respect national papers have come a long way since then. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 28, 2014 9:37:21 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

dj, believe it or not, I found an old Chicago newspaper from January 2nd 1981 while cleaning out some old boxes.

There was an article on Reagan and whether he was being too tough on Russia with economic sanctions for Russia's Afghanistan campaign.

Not much different than today, with Obama and Russia and the Ukraine today, other than is Obama welling to get really tough.

The other article was a graph of Reagan announcements  and actual things that occurred for the year that affected the economy.

Reagan had two economic stimulant announcements to improve the economy that year. First one seem to help the stock market, second one, the market dropped.

What I found interesting was on the graph, the notation "prime rate topped out at 20%" Can you imagine what would happen to this country today if the prime came even close to that number?

oh, i remember it.  people were freaking out.

I always remembered I thought that was under Jimmy Carter. Been wrong all these years.

i think that Jan 2nd 1981 WAS Carter, VB.

I do not have the papers right now, as a relative has them to look at, and will not get them back for a week or so, but when I do, I will try to give all the highlights.

The politics and Presidential actions discussed in 1981 tracked very similar to what is going on today with the Presidency.

Things really do not change as much as we really think they do.

Also had a Los Angeles Times paper from January 1966. I was out there for the Rose Bowl (IU lost to S Cal 14 to 3)

It was  amazing how much the paper followed the Government line on Vietnam, just printing whatever the Government released for public consumption. In this respect national papers have come a long way since then. 

great observations, VB.  i have always thought that this admin was a lot like Reagan's- and not just in terms of rhetoric- in terms of actually policy.  and, for that reasons, i think that most liberals and leftists will remember Obama with the fondness that most rightists and conservatives remember Reagan.

[dondub]

Reagan convictions....most of any presidency and I believe it is more than the 21 posted.

Carter and military spending? Why didn't Paul show the decline in year after year military spending under Carter. I don't recall "drawing down the military"

nor any "outright surrender to the Russians". Does anyone else?

[dondub]

mediamatters.org/research/2007/01/23/rosen-distorted-defense-spending-during-carters/140752

[djAdvocate]

Sept 29, 2014 11:04:39 GMT -5 dondub said:

mediamatters.org/research/2007/01/23/rosen-distorted-defense-spending-during-carters/140752

i think neoconservatism actually started, as official US doctrine, under FORD.  if you look at the career paths of people like Rumsfeld, you will find that they all lead back to that administration.  during the makeover of Nixon, they utilized a scorched earth policy, and replaced them with fresh clean neocons.  and the wretchedness has not stopped since.