Reagan unemployment of 7.4 in 84 = amazing, Obama's 7.8= horrible, isn't that an odd standards cons?
is there some magic point below 7.8 where it's great? like breaking 7.6 things get fantastic? lol
the truth is... considering where BOTH PRESIDENTS WERE DURING THEIR TERMS WITH UNEMPLOYMENT OVER 10 PERCENT... both are pretty darn impressive...
Reagan started out with a 7.6 rate... he only had a net drop of .2 in his first term...
if Obama gets a drop of .2 next report, which will come out the Friday before the election... it will EQUAL Reagan's first term "growth"...
if that happens... you cons can cry all you want... but I don't think many people will be listening beside the choir...
now... let's hear the excuses! (remember, Reagan's 7.4 was also in a holiday season!)
your tears taste delicious cons... lol
what a thoroughly partisan reply byhisello... why if you just looked at JUST your facts... why you would think cons are perfect... lol...
did you even mention the cause of Obama's recession ONE TIME... the housing collapse?
how can you SO NARROWLY FOCUS ON ONLY ONE NARRATIVE, SO MUCH SO EVEN A CHILD COULD SEE THE BIAS?
why bother saying so much that's so blatantly cherry picked?
your answer to my other question was much better when you didn't waste your time making a complete fool of yourself...
I'm shocked at how you could give such a professional reply in such a comically bias manner...
it's like telling a 20 minute joke, in great detail and great energy... that's not funny
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
The reagan rate wasn't based on a house survey from phone calls that considers 1 hour or 10 hour weakly or monthly part-time work as full employment. Nock Nock question door to door or phone calls asking patrons minors, adults or seniors "are you working or some kind of work" seems to be more effective in lowering the rate than filing individuals asking for unemployment benefits.
There's been no surge in the past month for new start up, chains, mom & pops business, & expansion in existing industries, textile, manufacturing, retail, struggling USPO, refineries, educations, transportation, even finance & many other struggling along with a number of bankrupt cities such as stockton, prichard, & san bernandino.
One can wonder who replaced Solyndra, DHL OH, Solar Power, Mervyns, Abound Solar, Leman Bros. CA Shell refineries & many others?
There were far fewer people on unearned government assistance (wic, food stamp, SSI 800-1300 monthly allowances) in the 80's than today. In the 80s the economic boom was felt & seen which isn't today. I may believe on the current rate if the economy really were growing with surge & expansion in domestic businesses, no cities going bankrupt, GM/GE outsourcing half if not most of their production & labor force in overseas factories, & the dollar growing rather than weakening to having less worth than the Australian Dollar which used to be worth half of the U.S. dollar.
It can not be helped for suspicion to arise towards 114,000 jobs added could lower the rate from 8.1 to 7.8% when months before Sept. 2x that of the latest added jobs figure did not equate to .3% drop. Compare the numbers of jobs added 114,000 for sept. to the months of Jan/Feb 12', May/Jun 12', Jun/Jul/Aug 11', Apr/May 11', Sept/Oct 10',Feb/Mar 10', Nov/Dec 09', Jun/Jul 09' with population growth (lost business, unemployed?). To bad not all unemployed are counted especially the self employed entrepreneurs, independent drivers, landscapers, street performers, or contractor who just closed his/her business, yet there are still allot of for lease sign. Replacing full timers for seasonal or part timers working 1 - 10 hours that the survey deemed as employed doesn't bring about good times to come.
The coming sequestration with lay off notices being delayed & struggling USPO defaulting on benefits that may lead to even more lay offs having already suffered with some downsizing, plant & office closing could threaten that rate to rise. Perhaps what's needed is a $trillion tax increase, more borrowing, spending, tax credits, loopholes, & waivers to partisan journalist (media matters) unions & corporations such as GEs zero tax (exemption?) & GM's $45 billion tax credits to attract investors despite 3 bailouts in the course of 6 months til GM's finally file for structured bankruptcy to change its destructive habits ending in the closing of hundreds of GM dealership, reduction of domestic production, boost & import productions from foreign (China) GM plants.
Did more borrowing & spending cut the deficit?, wasn't there a pledge to cut the deficit in half at the end of the 1st term back in 08 when in fact it double in 4 years, instead of 4.5 trillion deficit we ended up with 17 trillion? Devaluing the dollar further as the feds prints & buy back what they can't sell to international countries is nothing more than money laundering.
How is devaluing the dollar (pay cut) further good for everyone? Is the current admin's understanding of economics all about borrowing more money, which to them, means the more money you can spend & since government can print money legally why not keep printing more to fund its society's costly lifestyle. It's like a friend borrowing money from everyone close to them by faking cancer to go on a world tour or a lavish wedding. Its not about making money through trade, materials, goods, manufacturing, entertainment, or service, but making money by exhausting every ones money.
- yutsnarkLv 77 years ago
During Reagan's recession, unemployment went up to 10.3 percent. Then it went down again, and folks thought he was a genius. Go figure.
- byhisello99Lv 57 years ago
If all of the relevant information were contained in your description then, yes, that would be an odd standard.
In his first term Reagan faced a bigger problem than unemployment: inflation. Beat inflation or new jobs do not last.
The fix for inflation was known to Jimmy Carter: allow the unemployment level to rise until inflation is wrung out of the economy. Carter knew this also, but allowing unemployment to rise would hurt his approval numbers. He refused to do what had to be done.
When Reagan took office unemployment was high and climbing. Inflation was the bigger problem because it destroyed the engines of growth. Reagan let unemployment rise until inflation was wrung out of the economy. His approval rating sank. He was accused of not caring about the poor, but only interested in helping his rich friends. His chances for re-election were near zero. This is called political courage.
The results were dramatic. Millions lost their jobs but inflation was defeated. This allowed businesses to invest, creating jobs. Government could spend without fears of doing fatal damage to the economy. People on fixed incomes could make plans beyond next Tuesday's lunch. And it laid the foundation for an economic boom that was not dented until the credit freeze.
The absence of inflation created certainty that led to business investment that led to more jobs and profits that led to higher tax revenues that led to balanced budgets under Bill Clinton. He was given two gifts: low inflation and the peace dividend to spend. He used them wisely. Reagan was courageous of course, but Bill Clinton's courage is rarely identified. He did the most difficult of all things about the economy: nothing. He got out of its way.
Obama still has Reagan's gift of low inflation (although he has let the gift deteriorate). But another change had occurred that began to make unemployment numbers mean something new.
Productivity went through the roof. The same amount of input creates more output. Reagan removed inflation. G.H.W. Bush opened new markets in countries freed from Communism. The personal computer multiplied effectiveness. Clinton - a smart man - saw all of this and used it. He reached across the aisle to Republicans who worked with him and increased productivity created many great and good things.
One thing it created was a change in the character of employment. Fewer workers were needed. The mix between full time and part time jobs began shifting. But the definition of employment stayed the same: "Has a job." Reagan's unemployment number was based on full time jobs. Obama's is based on a completely different mix. Using the same mix that existed under Reagan, Obama's unemployment number would be somewhere north of 16%.
I am a dispassionate business consultant. I encourage my clients to be generous with their personal money but misers with their business's money. Otherwise, the business and its jobs disappear. When the legislative agenda and the direction of government regulation of small business became clear in Spring 2009, I told every client to stop hiring and use contractors. I told several business owners to lay off 100% of their employees and hire them back on as contractors. That was the best way to protect their businesses and to continue providing some jobs.
The problem is the regulatory compliance cost for each new job. Regulating or deregulating Wall Street is irrelevant to jobs. The cost of regulations on small businesses is highly relevant. I hear Mitt Romney calling for less regulation of small businesses. I hear Barack Obama calling this a desire to deregulate Wall Street. Perhaps new hearing aid batteries for Obama will fix this.
There are perhaps 430 Federal agencies that write regulations costing small businesses money, and I say perhaps because no one really knows - THAT is frightening. That number has increased under President Obama and the Affordable Care Act and the Financial Reform Bill are just getting started.
In 2008 the cost of regulatory compliance for a small business was $15,000 per employee. That was shamefully high. The first thing the Federal government did to reward a small business for creating a new job was to fine it $15,000. That number needed to come down.
In 2012 that number is $21,000 per employee. That's right. The shamefully high number went up by 40%. My best guess is that by 2016 the full impact of Affordable Care and Financial Reform will be in place and that $21,000 fine will look like the good old days. The new number will be between $31,000 and $34,000.
There are no excuses offered here, merely filling in the blanks with the information not contained in your diatribe. I am certain that the information was omitted because you did not know it existed. I cannot imagine that you would leave the information out just to try and improve one political party's election prospects.
- yLv 77 years ago
During president Regan's first term, It was apparent to everyone. That we were headed in the right direction. We can't say or see that today. The comparison to Regan has come and gone. It was a different time, different economy. It has already been shown that you can't compare the two nor their administrations.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 7 years ago
That was back when the numbers meant something, i think everyone knows that the REAL unemployment rate is much higher than 7.8%
- smsmith500Lv 77 years ago
Reagan was trying to do something about the problem and did. Obama could care less about the unemployed. It show in the fact that unemployment was over 9% thru most of his administration.
- Anonymous7 years ago
The real question is whether Romney will be able to dig us out of the obamamess as quickly as Reagan dug us out of the JiminyCarterMess.
- AlexLv 77 years ago
It's just like with the polls. When they show Obama leading, they're obviously skewed. When they show Romney leading, it becomes "Hey libs, look at these polls!"
@smsmith500: So, Obama, without even trying, turned the economy around almost as good as Reagan did when he was trying? That sounds like an endorsement. Unemployment was over 9% for almost half of Reagan's first term too. It was over 10% for almost a year.
- BadWolf63Lv 77 years ago
Counting that the numbers are rigged?
- Anonymous7 years ago
They're running scared, Believe me they are. They would do anything now. So watch yourself. The lies are going to be exposed tonight and they don't quite know what to make of it. I will keep the faith. Obama 2012. Its time to stand up to all theirs lies and dumb polices that hurt this country bad.