Progressives: Please Explain How the Economy Fully Recovers by 11/6/12
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For comparison: Ronald Reagan took office Jan 1981. There was an economic recession beginning in July 1981, plus the Savings & Loan crisis. Unemployment rose to 10.8% in December 1982.
By the 1982 midterms, Reagan's popularity was dipping and the elections were seen as a referendum on the economy. The Democrats gained 26 seats in the House, a record since the Watergate years. The Senate remained largely unchanged.
By 1983 Reagan's popularity was at 35%. By election day in 1984, unemployment had dropped, but to 7.2%, not the 5% that OP asks for. Inflation rose during Reagan's first term and was around 4%, up to 4.8%, during 1984, and rates during his first term were higher than today's. Corporate earnings went up - like present day. Economic growth for the last 3 months of 1984 was around 4.9%, but lower during the presidential campaign. Much of the recovery was obtained through deficit spending, although the re-election campaign downplayed the deficit numbers. The national debt under Reagan went from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.
Reagan went on to be re-elected in a landslide victory, despite the fact that the economy wasn't "fully recovered" from the '81 recession to the standards OP insists upon.
What's past is often prologue.
Ronald Reagan had experience managing the budget of one of the world's largest economies (California) BEFORE he took office.
That allowed him a little more credibility with the populace when he promised to turn things around.
Mr. Obama had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA experience dealing with a budget of ANY size before he was elected.
He did have the gift of gab and that help sweep him into office.
Now the magic of his speechifying has worn off and now even the most Birkenstock Wearing, Granola Chewing, Hybrid Car Driving, NPR Listening To liberal knows that he simply doesn't have the mental makeup to know what to do about the tsunami of economic trouble America is in.
That is why he will be giving a soaring, inspirational concession speech on the evening of the first Tuesday, November 2012.
Ronald Reagan had experience managing the budget of one of the world's largest economies (California) BEFORE he took office.
That allowed him a little more credibility with the populace when he promised to turn things around.
Mr. Obama had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA experience dealing with a budget of ANY size before he was elected.
He did have the gift of gab and that help sweep him into office.
Now the magic of his speechifying has worn off and now even the most Birkenstock Wearing, Granola Chewing, Hybrid Car Driving, NPR Listening To liberal knows that he simply doesn't have the mental makeup to know what to do about the tsunami of economic trouble America is in.
That is why he will be giving a soaring, inspirational concession speech on the evening of the first Tuesday, November 2012.
Your post is nothing more than an expression of your dislike for Obama. You cannot counter the facts that Reagan's numbers weren't as good as what you're demanding in a "full recovery" scenario, and in some cases were worse than Obama's at the equivalent point in their first terms, yet he was re-elected. It goes counter to your assertions and you haven't put up a decent rebuttal. And Reagan wasn't re-elected because he'd once been the governor of California. Funny you'd claim that - you're the same poster who earlier said Reagan in the 1980 campaign was viewed as
1. A washed-up actor
2. A washed-up governor
3. A failed 1976 candidate
It won't make a full recovery by then. How will Obama keep his job, because most Americans are not willing to take a chance on President Palin, President Bachman, or President Cain.
Your post is nothing more than an expression of your dislike for Obama. You cannot counter the facts that Reagan's numbers weren't as good as what you're demanding in a "full recovery" scenario, and in some cases were worse than Obama's at the equivalent point in their first terms, yet he was re-elected. It goes counter to your assertions and you haven't put up a decent rebuttal. And Reagan wasn't re-elected because he'd once been the governor of California. Funny you'd claim that - you're the same poster who earlier said Reagan in the 1980 campaign was viewed as
1. A washed-up actor
2. A washed-up governor
3. A failed 1976 candidate
I offered no contradictions. Yet you have offered no reason why America would vote for Obama twice. If you think 9%+ unemployment and nose-diving home prices are something that people will ignore while in the privacy of the voting booth then your delusional.
Reagan is not running for president in 2012.
He died on June 5, 2004.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
