E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Anonymous / AP
In this 1984 file photo, President Ronald Reagan addresses a session with House Republicans in Washington on Capitol Hill, appealing for support of a three-year $150 billion deficit reduction plan. Next to the podium are Vice President George Bush and Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., right.
No president running for re-election in rocky economic times can escape the monthly jobs report, and Friday's numbers brought disappointing news -- the jobs picture has slowly improved in recent months, but will it be enough for President Obama to be able to declare "it's morning in America again?"
Even though there are no exact parallels in electoral history, Ronald Reagan in the spring of 1984 was -- and Obama right now is – a first-term president leading a country slowly and painfully creeping its way out of a severe recession.
By some measures the recession of 2007-2009 and its long aftermath are worse than what Reagan had to contend with, partly because the recent recession was accompanied a crisis in global financial markets.
Alan Krueger, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman, offers his view on the latest nonfarm payrolls number and the state of U.S. job recovery.
Our view today of Reagan’s re-election triumph in November of 1984 is colored by everything we know now that he and his critics didn’t know in the early summer of 1984.
Despite an unsteady performance in his first debate with his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale, Reagan eventually prevailed in a landslide, winning nearly 60 percent of the popular vote and carrying every state but Mondale’s home state of Minnesota.
By the beginning of 1984, Reagan had endured several politically damaging missteps such as his proposal to cut Social Security early retirement benefits by more than 30 percent and to delay cost-of-living increases for retirees. “Despicable,” growled Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill. “A rotten thing to do.”
The unemployment rate which had peaked in November and December of 1982, fell sharply throughout 1983 and the first few months of 1984 before flattening a bit. By the time voters went to the polls in November, the last pre-election report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed 7.4 percent unemployment -- the highest number a president has ever been re-elected with.
Remarkably, from April of 1983 to April of 1984 the economy was generating an average net increase of more than 360,000 jobs every month. Compare that job growth to the less robust current numbers: from April of 2011 to April 2012, there’s been an average net increase of 159,000 jobs every month.
Although during Obama’s presidency the unemployment rate has never hit the 10.8 percent level it reached in the 1982 recession, it reached 10 percent in October 2009 and has fallen slowly to 8.1 percent—compared to 7.7 percent in April of 1984.
Mitt Romney's advisor Eric Fehrnstrom responds to Friday's jobs report, saying it is extraordinarily weak, and that the Obama campaign should change their slogan from "forward" to "backward."
What’s especially striking when one compares the Reagan era to what’s happening today is the contrast in long-term unemployment. The number of long-term unemployed, those jobless for 27 weeks or longer, peaked in June of 1983 at nearly 2.9 million; the number of long-term unemployed hit 6.7 million early in 2010 and still stands at more than 5 million, according to Friday’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The average number of weeks of unemployment peaked at 21 weeks in mid-1983 while the average weeks of unemployment soared to more than 40 weeks last year and remains at 39 weeks.
And the long-term unemployed are a far higher percentage of jobless people than was the case in Reagan’s first term as president. In the spring of 1984, the long-term unemployed accounted for about one in every five jobless people; but according to Friday’s BLS report, 41.3 percent of the jobless last month were long-term unemployed. (Some of this longer-lasting unemployment is due to the extension of unemployment insurance benefits.)
In the media commentary of the spring of 1984, there was a consensus that the economy had improved enough for Reagan have a good chance of winning a second term – although the economy was far from the only issue that Democrats were trying to use against Reagan.
Mondale was talking on the campaign trail that spring about the CIA’s mining of Nicaraguan harbors and Reagan's “utterly irresponsible” policies in Central America. Soon he warned, “America could be involved in full-scale war in Central America.”
New York Times economics columnist Lenard Silk wrote in mid-April 1984 that “While the economic recovery increases the odds of President Reagan's re-election, relatively high unemployment persists in different parts of the country and could hurt him in some key states.”
Silk suggested that perhaps Democrats would shift the campaign focus to a different economic issue: “Despite the overall rise in the economy and in the average level of real disposable income, the ‘fairness’ issue, or unequal distribution of gains and losses from the Reagan programs, is one that the Democrats may be able to exploit, and to which Mr. Reagan seems extremely sensitive.”
He speculated that, “The 1984 election could be more of a ‘class’ conflict than the 1980 election was, and this could work to Mr. Reagan's disadvantage.”
Even though he’s the incumbent and not the challenger, as Mondale was in 1984, Obama has for months made a “fairness” argument to voters, saying that upper-income people ought to pay higher taxes.
As for the jobs data, Obama’s chief economic advisor Alan Krueger gave CNBC a guarded assessment Friday morning: “Given the problems that the U.S. economy has had over the past decade -- problems that have been building for quite some time – we need faster job growth. We have a very large jobs deficit…. We need more job growth in this country and the president is trying to do the things to hasten job growth.”
He argued that if Congress had passed some of Obama’s proposals such as sending more federal money to cities and local governments to hire and retain public school teachers and firefighters, “then I’d think we’d be having better growth.”
But he said “the economy is continuing to heal and confidence remains strong.”
The Obama campaign has yet to offer its version of the soothing, feel-good ad the Reagan campaign began airing in May of 1984: “It’s morning again in America.”
Leave a Comment:
There's one thing for sure: Obama is no Reagan and never will be!
And thank God for that!
which is why it's so interesting that this article is trying to somehow draw a comparison!!!??
As I understood the article, its premise is that the poll numbers of the two at this stage of the campaign do not vary all that much. That's probably not that surprising, but may be useful that this race is far from over.
Old vet - of course they're trying to liken Obama to Reagan; hence the title of the article. They know most people don't read the whole article. But they are not comparing poll numbers, they are saying Reagan didn't know the state of the economy (or how well his policies were working in early summer) as Obama doesn't know the state of the economy (or how well his policies are working). GOP is banking on Obama's policies are failing and the Dems are banking on that a miracle will happen between now and Nov.
Thank God!
The right wing Obama haters are out in force with their own warped versions of reality. You can tell they're losing it when they make such extremist comments. It's their echo chamber, and they can be safely ignored since no reasonable person could believe what they're saying. Let them scream all they want, it will serve to motivate the rest of us to get out and vote so that none of these radicals or their representatives will ever get even close to power.
"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause."
obama haters?......you mean people that are concerned about the future of our nation?.......you don't have to "hate" obama to see that he is bad for our nation and has done enough damage....let him become a permanent tourist!
Obama is no Regan!!!!
And you're no speller. (That was mean. I apologize. Tried to delete but the site froze on me.)
Thank goodness Obama is no Reagan. One Reagan is one too many.
HA HA what a Fkinnnnnnnnnng Joke!
So MSNBC went from news Channel to Obama Cheearleading Squad Channel to Comedy Central part 2 Channel.
Oh Brother I can't stop laughing
I almost feel sorry for these righties posting on this vine,,,,they don't have a leg to stand on and when you present them with facts, well their heads explode,,,I voted for reagan his first term and about half way through I knew I had wasted my vote,,,this was a very scary man,,,I would watch him give speeches and all I could think was,,this is not a president, this is an actor playing a role, a role that almost started the third world war!!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Obama is a community organizer/Professor pretending to be a president and failing.
My head doesn't explode with facts, I don't like distorted facts. I get it, both sides distort and misrepresent the facts. I just think it's funny that the lefties start to cry when the GOP starts talking about reducing our deficit. It's much easier to lie to people and tell them the government is going to help them than to tell them the truth that we have to tighten our belts to get back on track.
Obama is a socialist trying to keep the American people from finding out he's a socialist.
SInce 49% of NBC/MSNBC is owned by GE and their CEO is on Obama's economic team so this article is not a surprise. But then in 2008 your reporters were getting thrills up their leg. Why don't you guys look into why Obama could not even get his own party to vote for his 2013 budget. 414-0. NBC/MSNBC has typically loaded up his interviews of Obama with politically convenient softballs. First we had the race card article now this. Why don't you just put your Obama sign on the home page.
Mark--MSNBC is more liberal, to be sure. But that's OK. The Republicans have their own station--it's called Fox. You know, the one that provides employment for every failed Republican presidential aspirant and reported that Obama attended a madrassa in Jakarta and never admitted the story was false.
Mark: but at least Fox is hiring not just "failed Republican presidential candidates" but many others as well being the successful entity that it is...I don't know anything about the madrassa story but I will certainly look it up...thanks
Reagan and Obama are very different. Reagan was an actor who knew how to deliver a line convincingly. He was not a complex man. Reagan knew what he knew and didn't want to be disturbed with facts. That served him well because he could be authentically sincere and the American people appreciate simple explanations to complex problems. Obama is an intellectual who enjoys exploring the nuances of each situation. He also wants to explain those nuances and thereby loses his audience.
Old Vet, Showing your ignorance again. Maybe if you actually studied Reagan, read the Reagan diaries you would find out just how brilliant and informed Reagan was. Reagan spent years in preparation for the presidency studying history, politics, and economics. Reagan's Bachelor's Degree was in Economics.
Obama couldn't hold Ronald Reagan's shoes, much less wear them.
obama is a phony intellectual who proves that a man with an allegedly high IQ can still be as dumb as dirt.....reagan loved america and the american people.....obama despises america and holds the american people in utter contempt...
Larry--I don't debate with you. You have demonstrated over and over that you read things and don't comprehend what you read. The result is that you often have a "unique" interpretation of events.
Mcpaddy--Thank you for sharing your unreasoning hatred of Obama. I'm grateful that most people do not share your perverted view.
Obama is a lawyer, just like Clinton, and you have to watch every word he says, because just like Clinton, he will lie to you and then deny it.
Old Vet,,,,Very well said,,,
Thank you. In a way, Reagan reminds me of FDR. FDR was not much of an intellectual and, like Reagan, could be pragmatic. Also like Reagan, FDR could simplify very complex concepts and deliver a line convincingly. Unlike Reagan, FDR knew the world was very complex and surrounded himself with intellectuals who could explain the nuances to him. FDR was also a much more complex man than Reagan.
Everytime Nobama compares himself to Reagan And Lincoln....I puke!
I believe in God, but am not overly Religious.......however.....I PRAY that the "Hollywood-in-Chief" goes to California next year and gets his kudos and maybe an Academy Award to go with his useless Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Actually, he will probably get a Grammy for his Al Green song that the Main Stream Media fell in LOVE with!
The Man is obsessed with hugs, and kisses and slobbering, and partying, and singing, and NEVER found a Camera he didn't LOVE!!!
Patty--Obama did not compare himself to Reagan. The article makes some comparisons of the poll numbers the two had at this stage of the campaign. But thanks for sharing your unreasoning dislike of the man who leads in all the polls.
Old Vet
I am soooooo surprised that you are an Obama Lover......my Navy Friends at Virginia Beach are NOT!
Obama mentions Reagan and Lincoln MANY times in his Stupid, Boring speeches!
I guess you just read, but don't watch?
The Navy Seals DESPISE him! (4 Close Friends are Seals here at Virginia Beach and think he is a POS)
I, I, I, ME, ME, ME...
Mcpaddy is apparently a mind reader since he knows what Obama hates.
Patty: mentioning Regan is not the same thing as comparing himself to Reagan. Duh! But if you say four Navy seals despise Obama, I guess I'll have to vote for Romney, or not.
To Patty"""
Wasn't reaguns a movie star...Bed Time for Bonzo...repubs love their Hollywood stars ...enough to make them president
The attempt to link Obama with Reagan is laughable on so many sides; not the least is the propaganda by the media that only the “Great Depression” was worse
As side-by-side comparison of circumstances inherited by Reagan and Obama is as follows:
Inflation
Reagan 13%
Obama 0%
Unemployment Rate
Reagan 7.5%
Obama 7.6%
GDP Growth (Previous Year):
Reagan -0.27%
Obama 0.0%
Prime Bank Interest Rate
Reagan 18.5%
Obama 3.25%
Among the factors that reflect the tale of the two presidencies is the price of gold.
Recently the price of gold reached $1,609.00 per ounce. While this is an historic high in terms of raw dollars, it is not the high insofar as inflation-adjusted price. That came on January 21, 1980 when gold reached $850.00 per ounce; however adjusted to 2011 that price is the equivalent of $2,328.00.
Gold prices often are a bellwether and commentary on the foibles and successes of those in power in the United States, as the dollar is the de facto global reserve currency and America has been the dominant economic and military power since World War II.
In 1980, when gold prices set the record, the United States was in the throes of a recession with annual inflation running at 13.5%, the unemployment rate was 7.5%; the annual GDP growth was a minus 0.27%, and the bank prime interest rate was over 18.5%. The flight to gold was overwhelming as no one had any confidence in the policies of Carter and the Democrats in Congress.
That was the landscape of the country when Ronald Reagan assumed office in January of 1981.
The job facing Reagan was the most daunting since the Great Depression -- and far worse than what Barack Obama inherited in 2009 -- as the combination of extreme inflation (the highest annual rate in the nation's modern history), unemployment (which peaked at 10.8% in 1982), and virtually no one able to pay the exorbitant bank interest rates were major obstacles that had to be overcome in order to revitalize the economy. The price of gold reflected that dilemma.
However markets react not only to the actual circumstances at hand but to confidence in leaders and what is perceived as future positive or negative factors. Because of Reagan's policy pronouncements and belief in the free markets combined with the passage of his economic growth agenda, by the end of his first 12 months in office the price of gold had declined to $377.50 per ounce (equivalent of $936.78 today). This remarkable drop of nearly 60% from the previous all-time peak just 24 months before came about despite the fact that America was still in the throes of excessive (but declining) inflation and extremely high unemployment.
By August 1983 (28 months into President Reagan's first term) the price of gold was at $401.75 or $910.48 per ounce in 2011 dollars (down 61% from 1980 peak). Inflation had been reduced to 3.2% (from 13.5%); the unemployment rate was at 9.2% (down from a high of 10.8% in November of 1982); annual GDP growth in 1983 was 4.52%, the highest in the previous four years. In the final year of Reagan's first term GDP grew by an astounding 7.19% and the unemployment rate had been reduced to 7.6%). Yet the average annual federal government budget deficit over those years was kept at 4.2% of GDP despite the overwhelming debacle facing the country in 1980-81.
The contrast between Ronald Reagan's first term and that of Barack Obama is stark and indicates a deliberate effort by the current president to destroy the American economy as he will have added over $5.5 trillion to the national debt in an effort to transform the United States into his vision of a socialist utopia. By comparison Reagan added $1.35 trillion (inflation adjusted to 2011) over his first term while saving the American economy.
Larry
You need to take your Meds!
Apparently you are getting a HUGE pension....so you don't give a crap about the rest of us?
Mr. Robinson, when Reagan entered office on January 20, 1981, unemployment was decreasing and the GDP was increasing. And had been for a little over six months. Check my facts please. Reagan then set about cutting federal income taxes and reducing the federal budget. By July 1981, growth of employment had stopped and GDP had flatlined. The worst recession since the Great Depression ensued, with unemployment peaking at 10.8% in Nov.-Dec. 1982. Check my facts, please. Reagan then reversed himself on tax policy, advocating for and signing the largest increase in U.S. income taxes in history. Recovery followed. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? Maybe. But those are the facts.
I care about liberty and it's liberty as the founders declared that provides us with the pursuit of happiness, NOT GOVT
I don't get any huge pension. I don't believe in retirement. I love working and running my businesses FROM HOME.
Larry and Patty--This is amusing. You guys are on the same "hate Obama" side yet are at each other's throats. I thought only Democrats did that.
Publius
I was raising a family when Reagan took office and began restoring our nation from the nightmare that Carter (and Nixon) created with their liberal policies.
Reagan's policies were tough because he had to break the back of inflation and high interest rates that were destroying the nation.
After getting those trending downward and restoring some control, we had the greatest expansion of growth and jobs in our nation's history.
This history lesson puts it in perspective
in 1978, when President Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which mandated that the Federal Reserve strive for both full employment and stable prices.
Then, in the summer of 1979, with the inflation rate exceeding 10 percent, Carter appointed the inflation hawk Paul Volcker as Fed chairman. Whether Carter knew what he was doing is debated to this day.
For weeks, Volcker worked hard to build consensus within the Fed for raising rates. He also summoned the Wall Street Journal's opinion editors, Robert Bartley and George Melloan, to lunch in the dining room of the New York Federal Reserve Bank to try to win their support. Then he held an unusual Saturday meeting of the Fed’s board of governors on Oct. 6. Afterward, the Fed announced it would raise the discount rate, which it charges banks that borrow at its window, to 12 percent.
When this news was announced that night, not everyone understood its importance. Pope John Paul II was visiting the U.S. at the time, and CBS asked the Fed spokesman, Joe Coyne, if their announcement mattered. “You'll remember this long after the pope has left town,” Coyne told the network.
Coyne was right. For what Volcker was really saying was: "We are not afraid to force recession, whatever the statute says. Our only job is to stop inflation."
The Journal spelled it out the following Monday in an editorial bluntly titled "Support Mr. Volcker":
"The new Federal Reserve anti-inflation package is the most hopeful economic policy in decades," wrote the Journal's editors. "Since 1965, inflation has ratcheted ever higher … It is past time for a decisive step to break that spiral, and Mr. Volcker's package is the best hope we have."
Volcker used his monetarist cover to tighten violently. Between summer 1979 and December 1980, the prime rate rose to 21.5 percent from 12 percent.
Why so high? To wring extra money out of the economy, certainly, but also to prove the Fed meant what it said. Volcker incurred the wrath of many. Homebuilders sent the Fed two-by-fours to symbolize the houses they were not building; car dealers sent in keys to unsold vehicles. "We were negotiating for a house when Mr. Volcker came along and knocked the struts from under us," a husband told the New York Times in 1980.
In the second dip, which officially began in summer 1981 and ended late in 1982, unemployment rose past 10 percent. "That recession resulted from the absolute necessity to kill inflation," George Melloan told me.
The Fed didn't move the discount rate below 5 percent until the 1990s.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-20/to-avoid-double-dip-recession-remember-lessons-of-1980s-echoes.html
I don't hate Obama; I hate hate the ideology he pushes on us. Although when I listen to his lying, demagogue speeches like the one he gave today, he makes it difficult to not be drawn towards to really dislike the man.
To..Larry"""
Speaking of Paul Volker
December 28 2006:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gerald Ford's presidential term was as much marked by the economic forces of inflation as it was by the political fortunes of the time.
Ford, who was sworn in as president on Aug. 9, 1974, after the resignation of Richard Nixon, faced inflation that was already surging at a 10.9 percent annual rate in that month. It was thrust into overdrive by the OPEC oil embargo of 1974 and the elimination of wage/price controls instituted in the Nixon administration
President Ford, who inherited many of the nation's economic problems from the previous administration, was defeated in the following presidential election.
Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president in 1977.
Inflation remained a problem throughout the 1970s, finally peaking at an annual rate of 13.5 percent in 1980.
It wasn't until the early 1980s that inflation was brought fully under control.
Many credit the Federal Reserve, led by Carter-appointed chairman Paul Volcker with his "tough monetary policy," for that.
Volcker limited the growth of the money supply, which resulted in a recession and high lending rates.
Volcker "wrung inflationary psychology out of the economy," said Ratkus, who explained that until then people expected a certain amount of inflation in prices.
The expectation of inflation set the stage for sharp rises in costs and "helped create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts," said Ratkus.
Since then interest rates and inflation have remained relatively low.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/27/news/newsmakers/gerald_ford/index.htm?postversion=2006122710
Larry--My doctorate is in history, not psychology or psychiatry. Hence, I am unable to assist you. Regarding my area of expertise, Publius and Amunaka have presented an historically more accurate picture.
Old Vet-
Nonsense just like you.
it is unfortunate that they have found no reparative therapy for the disease of liberalism. It is one of the most insidious evils to infect free people in the history of the world.
Obama @!$%# more brains than Reagan ever possessed.
Obama = Reagan?! Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho!! That's a good one! Only the media could come up with a farcial comparison like that. Reagan was an dedicated conservative; Obama is some where between Carter II & Hugo Chavez.
Dear Mr. President,
I am a Republican. I do not want dirty air, dirty water or fewer people with health insurance. I drive an environmentally conscious car, bike when I can, and I recycle diligently. I will teach my child to conserve energy and water as I do. My health insurance premium for my middle class family has nearly doubled since you have been in office. I also personally subsidize the health insurance of my mother. I do not complain.
I am a Republican. I, along with many in my shoes, pay my fair share. I am not considered part of the 1%, however the true “Buffet Rule”, the Alternative Minimum Tax, is my April reality. My family’s effective tax rate is usually over 30%. It’s a struggle, but I pay it on time, every year, without question or protest.
I am a Republican, but I am an American first. And you are also my President, and the President to everyone who is lucky enough to call this country home; not just the Americans whose vote that you covet. It’s been difficult to observe your office continue to divide and lump people into generalities when you promised to unite.
I am a Republican. I voted for you in 2008, because I truly believed that you could make a difference. I am not ashamed of my choice; I am disappointed. However, in contrast to what seems to be a theme in your administration, I don’t blame others. I point the finger straight at my own chest and accept responsibility for my actions.
I am a Republican. I will learn from my choice in 2008, and will not make that mistake again.
Thank you Pyro Engineer...very well said...
Dear President Obama;
I'm a Republican; I'm an American first and foremost...I'm not to be lumped in with others of Hispanic origin that you are so concerned about pandering to. I have many of the same concerns that other citizens of this country are worried about; our economy, the legacy of debt that we're leaving our children and grandchildren with; the pervasive nature of our government having increasing say over our lives (Obamacare); the threat of terrorism and your wanting to disarm; your wanting to pit one class of citizens against another...these are just a few of my many concerns. I did not vote for you in 2008 nor will I vote for you this November.
You know what I like about your post? You made a decision in 2008 based on promises that were made. You are not ashamed of your choice, but you also see that this president has failed to deliver on what he promised.
I especially like that you take responsibility for your actions. I wish our president would do the same.
Really....are you kidding me??? What moron would even suggest such a absolutely stupid idea, other then our bankrupt, desperate, none creditable, lapdog media. America is just plain fed up with the failed Obama presidency and administration. Anyone who can't see that is just dumber then dirt!!!!
Any surgeon who brings a dead man back to life in the emergency room is not a failed surgeon; a president who brings a nation back to life from a free-falling economic collapse is not a failed president. The Republicans who obstructed economic recovery by intention has failed the American people.
Reagan truly was a good actor. He made a lot of people think he was a conservative, yet he tripled the nation's debt. I hope the hell we never see conservatism like that again. Of course, Dubya came close. He doubled the national debt.
So JCC@FL, you'll be voting for Obama?
This is in reply to BILL 314065. You challenged me to give you 5 lies, not policies that did not work out. Here ya go:
1. Health Care deals will be covered on C-span - never happened
2. Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year. - going on 3 years now still open
3. Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without a stimulus - ?????
4. "I am immediately instituting PayGo" or Pay as you go; the debt is now over 14 trillion dollars
5. I am not somebody who promotes same sex marriage. - don't ask, don't tell.
As for your reference to accomplished liars, I didn't realize that responding on this forum was complaining; just remember, he who casts the first stone......................
You cannot compare regan with obama. It's because during regan's presidency, you did not simultaneously lose the entire auto & banking industries along with nearly all the banking industries of the entire rest of the western world. No. No. That only happened during obama's presidency and fdr's. But what made obama's worst than fdr's was that we were already fighting a shadow terrorist enemy and in the longest war we had ever fought while spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined while collecting taxes at a reduced rate 1/2 of what regan collected. No. No. Obama faced circumstances even more difficult than fdr.
And hey, don't look now. But the polar ice caps are melting. Scientists say it's because of a phenomena known as global warming due to fossil fuel usage. That unless obama changed the fossilf fuel usage habits of the world, global warming would achieve runnaway status which would result in a nearly complete depopulation of the planet. I tell you fdr never faced such a challenge. Regan did but like mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo he said that science is bunk. That there is no such thing as man-made global warming. That we can increase population into the trillions up from 2B in 1930 while using mainly fossil fuels especially coal and will never have a problem. 97% of the climate scientists disagree.
marshall,
please provide the quote and link where Reagan said that Science is bunk
"America is just plain fed up with the failed Obama presidency and administration."_______What America is fed up with is the Republican, obstructionist congress. The voters will show them the door in November.
2010 voter remorse of a Republican obstructionist Congress. Clean the House and Senate - Vote straight Democrat and hold them accountable to get it right.
There is another major difference here, which Mr. Curry seems to have missed entirely. The Reagan Recession--at the time the worst since the Great Depression--is aptly named and generally acknowledged to have been caused by the confluence of Paul Volker's restrictive monetary policy and Ronald Reagan's ill-timed 1981 budget cuts. In July 1980, the U.S. began a slow economic recovery from the second OPEC-induced oil crisis. Reagan entered office at a time when unemployment was decreasing and GDP was growing, albeit slowly. The recovery was halted and reversed in July 1981, following the institution of restrictive monetary policy by the Fed and the passage of Reagan's tax cut/budget cut package. The recession deepened throughout 1981 and into 1982, culminating in 10.8% national unemployment in Nov.-Dec. 1982. As such, the recession was truly Reagan's, being in large part the product of large federal budget reductions and the type of restrictive monetary policy advocated by conservative economists. Contrast this with Obama, who entered the presidency while the economy was in freefall, largely as a result of Bush 43's poor stewardship of the economy. Thus, Reagan's economic woes, linked inextricably with "Reaganomics," were attributed to him by the electorate. Obama's economic problems were caused by his predecessor and are his to fix, not necessarily to be blamed for. As summed up by one left-leaning pundit, Obama is under attack by Republicans who are whining that he is not cleaning up their mess fast enough.
Publius,
You write like someone who must be too young to actually have lived during the Reagan presidency.
Reagan did not cut the budget (unfortunately). Dem Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil pronounced every Reagan budget proposal "dead on arrival". Reagan VETOED the House budgets 72 times and the Democratic controlled House overrode his vetoes 28 times.
Here is the budget totals (FY 1982 was Reagan's first budget that he signed)
1982- 745.7
1983- 808.4
1984- 851.8
1985- 946.3
1986- 990.4
1987- 1004.0
1988- 1064.4
1989- 1143.7
What a dumb article.
Mr. Obama, you're no Ronald Reagan.
WTG:)
Neither is Mitt Romney.
dls--That's for sure.
If you etch-a-sketch Mitt, you'll see Tea Party talk first time, then President Obama talk the second.
Romney: the Obama wanabe. Romney has to ride the coat-tails of President Obama's success as a strategy for winning. Mitt, the me too candidate.
You conservative lemmings try to prop up Reagan as some sort of legendary figure when the only reason anybody talks about him is that republicans have been incessilently pumping him up for years. Think about it: the Bush boys aren't anything to write home about and the Ford/Nixon administrations were complete embarrassments.
The truth is that under Reagan's administration the national debt rose to an historic high and the Iran-Contra affair was a deep stain on his Presidency. Further, the only reason unemployment dropped during his first term is that he had a Congress willing to work with him in supporting the spending programs that were responsbile for new jobs. These are the facts kiddies, despite how much you choose to ignore them.
The right wing is trying every trick in the book to win. The Citizens United decision, brought to you by the a right wing Supreme Court. The voter suppression legislation some Republican controlled states are passing. Right wing companies supplying vote tabulation equipment. All that and they will still lose in November. Let's hope there will be a couple of vacancies in the Supreme Court during Obama's second term so he can fix that screwup, too.
Justice Thomas needs to be impeached.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most brilliant legal minds to ever sit on the federal bench. Just don’t tell that to most liberals in academia, the modern-day civil rights establishment, and the mainstream media who have spent over a decade and a half slandering the man for simply being a black conservative jurist who, when hearing cases before the Supreme Court, simply relies on the plain text of the United States Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers who drafted it. Isn’t that what every judge appointed to the federal bench is supposed to do?
http://tinyurl.com/3f4gbwm
In his 14 complete terms as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1991 through 2005, Clarence Thomas has written 327 opinions - majority, concurring and dissenting. Despite their consistency in showing him to be a formidable intellect and a staunch defender of the Constitution, his reputation among laypersons is not commensurate with his achievements.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVHolzerThomas90406.html
Why are the media so angry at Clarence Thomas?
By Helgi Walker | October 11, 2007
MEDIA REACTION to the release last week of "My Grandfather's Son" by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been noteworthy in two respects: First, while the general coverage across the country had been even-handed and fair, some journalists feel compelled to express their views of the book and the justice in terms that are so negative and personalized that they seem to belie a deep anger toward the man and what he stands for; second, others in the press are being chastised by their peers for not being critical enough of the book. The irony is that the man who some regrettably still feel the need to tear down 16 years after his confirmation is among the staunchest defenders on the Supreme Court of a fulsome understanding of the First Amendment - thus protecting their right to voice their opinions, however mean-spirited.
What are the principles expressed in the book that are so worthy of vitriol and cannot be acknowledged as legitimate? As a former law clerk to Thomas, I have heard these principles from him for many years: All people are created equal, with inherent worth and dignity; freedom includes freedom of thought; hard work and education are important elements of success; aim for self-reliance so that you can help not just yourself but others too; stand up for what you believe in; never give up in adversity, keep trying to put one foot in front of the other; and great things are possible in this nation. I have never understood what was so "dangerous" about these ideas. Indeed, most Americans would have little quarrel with these propositions.
http://tinyurl.com/2uc8vu
How the hell would anyone know. Incredibly, he's NEVER once verbally participated in any of the hearings before the Court since he became a Justice.
Where do you drag out this crap from, a Heritage Foundation-funded publishing company?
JackBNimble
You might try be reading his many opinions, that's what constitutional scholars do to judge the effectiveness of justices, not their verbal questions
2012 - year to root out the conservative cancer that has gone malignant with the Tea Party GOP.
dls,
No we are trying to root out the disease of liberalism that is the root cause of our nation's problems for the past 100 years.
Larry, with health care costs as high as they are you probably can't afford to see a psychologist about your problem but if you go the closest emergency room I'm sure they can set you up with a free consult.
To Larry"""
Well ....
They did do a study and Psychologists say conservatism is a mental illness
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
28 Aug 2003
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
The paper is on line as an Adobe PDF document -> Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition PDF 600 KB ... and there is also a Google HTML cache version of the document online here -> Google Cache
The researchers set as their goal the synthesis of many previous methodologies of research in the hopes of coming up with a broad definition and analysis of Conservative thought and behavior.
Conclusion
They list eight elements that fit into any one of these three categories...
We consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with
(1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including(a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity(b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure;
(2) lowered self-esteem;
(3) fear, anger, and aggression;
(4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt;
(5) loss prevention;
(6) fear of death;
(7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and
(8) threat to the stability of the social system.
Definitions of Conservatism
Amunaka
Laughable and pitiful
It just shows how separated from reality that liberals are;
The principles of conservatives parallel those of the Founders. And that is specifically why marxist liberals despise conservatism.
The principles that elevate personal liberty and limited govt are anathema to marxist collectivist "thinking"
To Larry..."""
No the truth ...as you seem to prove with your every post.....
Amunaka: You didn't include that we conservatives hate clean water, clean air and we want to throw our grannies off the cliff...how could you forget?
Oh, it must be that liberals must be forgetful...because they try the same policies over and over again and they don't remember they never work.
To..juanita""""
I didn't know that ..thanks for the info
it's alright Juanita, I know how to play Amunaka's childish game
Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/leading-psychiatrist-says-liberalism-is-a-psychological-disorder/
To Larry""''
sorry posted this to you on anther page
So right wing political hack Dr Rossiter who no one ever heard of listens to Mike Savage and three years after a federally funded study "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," that was published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin found that conservatism was a mental disorder...right wing psychiatrist releases a book, where he heavily edits that AMA study ..tweaks it with all the radical rights talking points over the years and comes out with an unscientific and undocumented book called "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that just twists the earlier study to fit the right wing ideology when you look at the AMA study and his book side by side ..it makes it's way thru the right wing echo chamber is picked up by Fox..and viola it's validated as a factual study
childish games indeed
It is just unbelievable that PMSNBC would compare Obama with Reagan. Reagan loved this country and had great faith in the people of this country. Obama hates this country and wants to turn it into a nanny state controlled by people in government.
More over-the-top name calling and accusations from an ignorant right wing extremist.
Common Man-3493893-
You are so correct. The liberals cannot comprehend facts, the truth. So all they can do is create trouble and show there true colors, or ignorance to try and shift the eyes onto someone or something other than themselves. They are truly too stupid to grasp what is actually happening in America. As long as they get there Welfare and Food Stamps, they will follow Obama like lost sheep, right into the FEMA camps.
fuzz, wingnuts can't comprehend anything so it would be best if you'd bail and move to Somalia where nobody has to worry about 'government' and intellect isn't a requisite to anything. It should be a perfect fit for you.
To fuzz""""
Facts are a liberal bias the right has never been able to adopt
Thanks Amunaka, as I am aware of there ignorance, low self esteem, low IQ(doesn't even register) vulgar mouths, no common sense, Lying, lazy, thieves and lost sheep to follow Obama for their ObamaBucks for there Vote. NimbleNuts is a prime liberal example of a walking, talking after birth.
To..Fuzzy"""
Feel better now ...