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:
You have to watch this short video and then send it to your friends. ABC's Diane Sawyer presents this so you know it has to be true.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944
This is outrageous, but it has nothing to do with Obama. Try to stay on topic.
After the Republican's are swept from the state houses, the Democrats can pass some meaningful voter legislation. Like voter ineligibility if you live in a house than can be towed. Having more pitbulls than teeth and you can't vote. Having a child that is also your niece or nephew makes you persona non grata at the polls.
I'm confused. I would like to know exactly what damage President Obama has done to our country. I keep reading that from a number of you posters but I don't recall any valid specifics.
I had 3 small kids when Reagan was president. Times were tough back then and being able to deduct the interest we paid on our credit card really help our family- until Reagan did away with that "luxury". I don't think he was such a great president all things considered.
Diane
It was Tip O'Neil and the Democrats who taxed Credit Card interest.
Look up the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Diane, seriously, do you watch the news at all. Here's a list:
Added 7 Trillion to the debt over the past 3.5 years, poised to add another 1.2 Trillion next year. (this doubles the National debt since the beginning of our Country).
Unemployment rate is still over 8% and over 9% for the majority of his presidency. As I hope you have noticed, the projections for his so called job growth in this Country are much higher than reality.
Housing prices continue to go down; granted he didn't create this situation on his own; that started back in the Clinton administration when the ability to qualify for a home loan was lowered to the point anyone could get a loan whether they could pay for it or not; by the way there is footage of Obama way back then pushing for those changes. We all know where lowering the qualifications lead to.
His foriegn policy has made us the laughing stock of the world; I have several friends who live abroad and believe me, we are a joke.
Health Care is in a shambles since his Health Care Reform has passed; I know that for a fact, I work in health care. As more and more of the pieces of this legislation are enacted, the truth of the absurdity of this program comes to light.
This is not an inclusive list by any stretch but, it should get you started. If you don't believe me, look up the facts, they're available for anyone to see.
To..GForce"""
See what happened when the repubs controlled congress ..the senate ..the white house from Jan 2003 to Jan 2007...what a mess they created...
I think Reagan was more of proctologist than an actor. He sure stuck it to a lot of American taxpayers.
obama aint reagan.....he is the anti-reagan
Keck is back. Would you explain again about the evidence that Obama wants higher energy prices because when you Google it, you get a large number of hits.
ohh....uh, maybe you should google secretary choo and his statements about 8 dollar gas
.
.hi zorro...how you been ?
"I love working and running my businesses FROM HOME."______That's a euphemism for: My computer is in my mom's basement!
JCC@FL
1. My mother is 83 and I haven't lived with my mother since 1966
2. I'll bet I've hired and fired more people than you've even known in your life.
President Reagan is deceased. Is that what you are asking about? Because there is no comparison between the two. #1. President Reagan was an American.
Great. Another moronic "birther."
Zorro, back in 1961, Kenya was not officially a country. It was referred to as the "British East African Protectorate". Look it up. Also, back then, black males were referred to as "negroes". As unflattering as this term sounds today it was a descriptive term just as mentally challenged people were referred to as "retards" back in 1961. Also, the kind of fonts used on the document were not available back in 1961. Perhaps you can use that so called "intelligence" and check out the facts for yourself. Something here stinks and I dont like it and to be honest, even if this was a republican, I too would be just as suspicious and the left media is covering it up every step of the way.
Kenya wasn't called the British East African Protectorate in 1961. It was called Kenya. Anybody that collected stamps as a kid (as I did) would know that. In fact, the name Kenya was used beginning around 1920. You look it up, and stop relying on lying extreme right wing sources for your information
Seriously, comparing Obama to Reagan. First Reagan took over from a president who managed to create, during his presidency, double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment; Obama came into a bad situation and made it much, much worse. Reagan dropped the inflation rate, interest rates, and unemployment by a sizable margin by the end of this first term....Obama is poised to add ANOTHER 1.2 TRILLION to the deficit next year alone, no end in sight to high unemployment, etc etc. MSNBC has sunk to new depths in attempting to make this comparison. The best this Country can do is get rid of Obama and hope to God Romney does a better job...I'm not so sure about that at this point but, we MUST get rid of Obama if we have any hope of recovering from the pit he has created over the past 3.5 years.
GForce, you forgot to mention another of Reagan's accomplishments. He tripled the nation's debt.
The deficit was much, much lower then and at least he had something to show for it at the end of the day. What does Obama have to show for it....nothing.
GF--Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive and well. Unemployment is down; 25 plus straight months of job growth; basic manufacturing is up; Dow Jones at highest mark since 2007 (over 13,000); war in Iraq over for us; war in Afghanistan ending; al Qaeda on the run; Libya free without the loss of a single American life; deportations of illegal immigrants up; women respected; etc. etc. Did I mention that Bin Laden is dead and both GM and Chrysler are alive and well?
1. Bin Laden- sure I give Obama kudos for that
2. GM has announced they are shifting mfg to China- all of their Electric vehicles and expanding their Buick, Chevy, and Chinese labeled vehicles for export to the US.
3. GM cannot ever repay the money Obama gave them.
4. there are over a million FEWER people working today then when Obama took office
5. Obama carried out the withdrawal from Iraq that BUSH negotiated.
6. Obama turned over Egypt to the parent organization of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood
7. Murdering 1/2 million female babies every year is hardly "respecting women"
8. Chrysler was bought bv the Italians and China runs GM with Obama
9. Food stamp participation is up, highest increases in Blue States
10. Obama increased our debt more than Bush did in 8 years and more than all presidents prior to Bush combined
11. Obama quadrupled the deficit and his budget proposals forecast deficits over 1 trillion annually for the next 20 years.
General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers
Obama's spin on GM's latest profit report is pure baloney
Shikha Dalmia | May 24, 2011
No sooner had GM made its announcement than Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne dashed off a stinging rebuke to naysayers (like me) who had dared doubt the wisdom of the bailout. Likewise, the auto czar Ron Bloom credited the turnaround to the president’s “tough love” approach.
No doubt, $3.2 billion is a big number. But an even bigger number is $60 billion. That’s what this administration and the last one together sank into GM (not to mention another $20 billion or so they dumped into Chrysler). When President Obama gave GM this money, he insisted that it was not a handout but an “investment” that would cost taxpayers “not a dime.”
But if there was ever any doubt that this wasn’t going to happen, this earning report dispels it.
For starters, included in the $3.2 billion figure is the net $1.5 billion that the company generated from the one-time sale of Delphi, its auto parts supplier, and Ally Financial, its financial arm. Subtract that, and its performance looks much less impressive, especially compared to its rival Ford that really didn’t receive a dime from taxpayers yet made $2.6 billion last quarter—or nearly a billion more than GM.
But cold, hard cash is not the only help that GM got. Usually when companies declare bankruptcy, their tax liabilities increase since they have no more losses to write off. But GM got Uncle Sam’s special bankruptcy package that allows it write off up to $45 billion of old losses going forward. That puts its total bailout at up to $75 billion*. Even that’s not all. The Treasury gave GM $10 billion of the $60 billion as a loan; the rest was through the purchase of equity. (It has more or less paid back the loan.)
The equity means two things: One, GM has zero interest payments, something that gives it a distinct advantage over competitors. Ford, by contrast, had to pay $251 million in debt-service costs. Despite this, GM’s real per vehicle margin was over $1,000 less than Ford’s, thanks to the heavy incentives it was forced to give buyers. (If the administration can call this success, can it please call me the next American Idol?)
And two, taxpayers have no guaranteed return as they would have with a loan. Therefore, market valuation of GM’s stock will determine what they will recover. They got back $20 billion when the Treasury sold half of its equity when GM floated its first post-bankruptcy IPO in December. But that still leaves a $30 billion shortfall (excluding the $45 billion tax break). To get this back, the federal government would have to sell its remaining 365 million shares—about 26.5 percent of company equity—for about $55 per share. But after GM posted its latest earnings report, its stock price dropped to $31, a few dollars below even its IPO price of $33.
Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”
http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/general-motors-will-never-repa
Let me help you oldvet - Bush got bin ladin, Gm still owes the taxpayers over 300 billion, there is NO job growth, war in afghanistan is nowhere near over, muslim brotherhood alive and well in egypt, deportations? - more fuzzy obama math - more illegals, due to obamas implied amnesty poured over our border in the last 2 years then the previous 15 COMBINED - did I mention? Bush got binladin and GM owes the tAXPAYERS BILLIONS
Did I mention that Bin Laden is dead ... Old Vet
Seal Team Six killed Bin Laden ... Obama killed the economy
Pyro--The recession began in December 2007. Obama took office in January 2009. He must have been one evil dude to kill the economy fourteen months before he took office.
wrong AGAIN old spice ! dont you ever get tired of being wrong - see the democrats held congress since 2006 - so sooo much of what urkle "inherited" he got from his own democrat congress
fuzz, you are a very troubled person that needs to seek consultation. With health care costs as high as they are you probably can't afford to see a psychiatrist so go to your nearest emergency room and they'll set you up with a free consult.
Typical Liberal ignorance and denial. You are just another Obama lost sheep.
Reagan was like gw a puppet that danced to the tune of the neo-cons never was there a more corrupt administration except of course nixon / ford ....October Surprise ..Iran / Contra ..Starwars.. bin laden... Lebanon ...Grenada...HIV....romney is another perfect puppet to do the same of kind of dance for anybody that blows in his ear and echo thru his cavernous mind....
The U.S. and Iran
The story behind Reagan's dealings with the mullahs
Nov. 17, 1986
The tale sounded really too bizarre to be believed. The U.S. conniving at arms shipments to Iran? Sending a secret mission to palaver with the mullahs? Trying to keep the whole thing from Congress and most of the U.S. Government? And all over Iran, of all places! The country that held Americans hostage for 444 days beginning in 1979, the land whose fanatical leader, Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, has never ceased to denounce America as the "Great Satan," the state widely suspected to this very day of fomenting terrorist attacks against Americans.
Yet there is no question that it happened. Initially in the perhaps illusory hope of gaining influence with a post-Khomeini government in Iran, but eventually also as an inducement for Iranian help in winning freedom for U.S. hostages held by Muslim zealots in Lebanon, the Reagan Administration approved clandestine shipments of military equipment -- ammunition, spare parts for tanks and jet fighters -- to Iran through Israel.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962858,00.html
sorry bro....i cant hang, still ignore.
...you might try a little reality,,,not so much ultra left slant. dont take it personal...k ?
To..keck..""
Huh..?
I wasn't responding to you ...but you are just so easy to discredit...so stop telling me you got me on ignore ..then respond to my posts ...nice seeing you though
...thanks for reminding me why i dont want to see your posts. =)
Hey Libs, did you happen to catch todays jobs report? Or how about the housing numbers? Just how long are you dolts going to sit there and protect this empty suit? How can you folks NOT see right through this phony is beyond me. His entire Presidency is a failure of truly epic proportions. If you need more info, please google Obama vs Reagan recovery and see how its done. You might even learn a thing or two.
nycl--Bin Laden is dead; GM is alive. Unemployment is down; we now have 25 plus months of job growth; Iraq war is over; we're getting out of Afghanistan; Libya is free without the loss of a single American life; al Qaeda is greatly diminished, etc., etc. Maybe that's why the polls show Obama with a commanding lead in the electoral college. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
nycl, let's go back to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and see how that thingy did in terms of job creation. How long are you trolls going to sit there and prop up the much-maligned trickle down thingy? How can you lemmings HNOT see right through this phony shell game is beyond me. Republican presidents have been an abject failure of truly epic proportions. If you need more info get your heads out of the sand. You might even learn a thing or two.
Btw, the reaons Reagan's numbers look better is because he had a Congress who was willing to support the spending programs he proposed that were the reason new jobs were created. And while I've got your attention, remember that at the end of his two terms your Idol left the country with the largest debt in history. If you want any more lessons in the real history of Reagonomics and the illustrious tenure of this boob please don't hesitate to ask me.
You mean the low unemployment under Bush until the Democrats regained control of Congress?
You mean the record tax revenues that the Bush Taxcuts produced?
You mean the Bush who took out Saddam and his sons so they will never again murder Americans, Jews, and others?
You mean the Bush who captured the mastermind of 9/11? the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl and put him in Gitmo?
What's really funny is that the same people who idolize Reagan would pillory him if he had a "D" behind his name. 300% increase in the national debt, ending interest deductions for the small taxpayer, taxing Social Security benefits, taxing unemployment benefits, invading Grenada, the 241 Marines killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon. You right wingers would be occupying Washington, calling for Reagan's impeachment, if only he had been a Democrat.
Inasmuch as he understood the necessity of tax increases, he wouldn't be allowed in today's Republican party.
JCC, the republican spin machinery has done a fairly effective jobs of brain-washing their minions about those facts. It's really too bad because for the most part, the drinkers of conservative kool aid can't think for themselves.
If being like President Reagan you mean effective in getting the country's economy growing, then yes. If you mean being like President Reagan you mean deceased, I think that's illegal to say or propose.
I think we need to "Tear down the wall" of partisan politics in this country
Perhaps a more interesting question would be is Romney more like Reagan or Mondale? With his "aw shucks" personality and his rags to riches life story, people related to Reagan. Reagan also exuded optimism and talked about all the good things happening in America. He often appealed to our better natures. How does Romney stack up?
Did I mention - Bush got bin ladin and GM still owes the taxpayers billions
Getting Bin Laden two years after he left office. Wow. Quite an amazing feat. And I guess you missed the news about GM paying off the loan. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-motors-repays-81-billion-government-loans/story?id=10437944. True, the government still owns a great deal of GM stock, but that's a bit different.
better check your "facts" old spice - gm still owes billions and I hope your not so niave to think that getting a resourceful billinaire terrorist in a part of the world where we have very little toe holds was going to happen over night - Bush put the operation in place - it came to fruition while urkle is in the oval office - get it now??? Its getting to be a routine catching you up on things
"His entire Presidency is a failure of truly epic proportions."_____Surely you must mean Dubya. At end of 2008 and beginning January of 2009 we were losing jobs at the rate of 700,000 month. The nations debt had doubled from 2001-09. 140,000 troops in Iraq. Osama bin Laden roaming about. GM and Chrysler on the verge of bankruptcy. Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers collapsed. Since Obama took office over 3,000,000 were jobs created. 100,000 less troops in Iraq. Osama bin Laden dead. No more hijacking of Americans at sea by Somalian pirates (three for sure). GM and Chrysler returned to being profitable. The Dow is up 62% since January 2009. And you call that a failure of epic proportions? I can only hope for four more years of failure like that. You really need to turn off Limblow and study some facts. Or maybe you have a color problem.
1. Bin Laden- sure I give Obama kudos for that
2. GM has announced they are shifting mfg to China- all of their Electric vehicles and expanding their Buick, Chevy, and Chinese labeled vehicles for export to the US.
3. GM cannot ever repay the money Obama gave them.
4. there are over a million FEWER people working today then when Obama took office
5. Obama carried out the withdrawal from Iraq that BUSH negotiated.
6. Obama turned over Egypt to the parent organization of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood
7. Murdering 1/2 million female babies every year is hardly "respecting women"
8. Chrysler was bought bv the Italians and China runs GM with Obama
9. Food stamp participation is up, highest increases in Blue States
10. Obama increased our debt more than Bush did in 8 years and more than all presidents prior to Bush combined
11. Obama quadrupled the deficit and his budget proposals forecast deficits over 1 trillion annually for the next 20 years.
You mean the low unemployment under Bush until the Democrats regained control of Congress?
You mean the record tax revenues that the Bush Taxcuts produced?
You mean the Bush who took out Saddam and his sons so they will never again murder Americans, Jews, and others?
You mean the Bush who captured the mastermind of 9/11? the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl and put him in Gitmo?
...were only losing 390,000 jobs a month now
ahh obama years.
Your posts has so many errors that it qualifies as what I call a "garbage avalanche." There are so many things wrong with it that one doesn't know where to begin, and to refute all of them would take a very long time. Obama didn't turn over Egypt to anybody. He never had Egypt. What did you want him to do? Invade Egypt when you didn't like the new rulers? "Respecting women" refers to adult women, not female fetuses. You can't change reality by warping and polluting the English language. You imply that the economic collapse was caused by the Democrats in Congress. Clearly, you have no clue how our political and economic systems work. Please explain what the Democrats did to cause the greatest recession since the Great Depression. What bills did they pass that Bush signed that caused it. You don't suppose it was the severe absence of regulation of the financial industry by the Bush administration that caused it, do you?
Zorro,
tell us what bills the Republicans passed under bush that caused it?
What deregulation bills were signed by Bush? Answer NONE
Why in hell is a leftist news media outlet placing hussein and Reagan in the same sentence? Obama is a sick socialist pig and Reagan is a true American hero. Give me a f(*&^%$ break.
Another articulate and well-reasoned post from "Brisket" reflecting his broad knowledge and strong intellect. How did you learn to be so persuasive?
Did I catch you off guard? You maddow leeches crack me up.
Obama has a long way to go before he can be like Reagan.
Fortunately that's true.
There will be one more president's likeness carved on Mt. Rushmore and it sure as hell won't be Reagan.
Can a turkey soar like an eagle in September ? My guess is no , but then again I don't live in libby la-la land .
"Obama has a long way to go before he can be like Reagan."___With any luck at all, another forty years.
Those were the good old days-1984
I think most who lived during the era would say this compared to now. However, the era's cannot be compared because they are way different types of economies. Back then, globalization was well on the horizon but not yet the norm.
For instance, most textiles were (clothes) still made here. Can't compare the circumstances. Apples and orenges.
man you talking superpower days.
no he is better than Reagan he would of help those air traffic controllers keep there jobs
Elvis, there is no doubt that Obama despising the rule of law as he does, would aid and abet the air traffic controllers who were breaking the law.
how were they ..they wanted good pay so tell me how were they breaking the law
I want good pay, too. Should I break the law to get it?
it was against federal law
On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.[4] Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.[4]
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order,[6][7] and banned them from federal service for life. (This ban was later rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993
"i'm baraak obama.....and i approve ronald reagan".......wow, really ?! since when...2011 ?