ADVERTISEMENT

The Difference Between Obama’s Recovery and Reagan’s

nashvillegoldenflash

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2006
7,377
206
63
So President Barack Obama is back from Hawaii and the Los Angeles Times reports the president will trumpet his economic record. The Times reports:

Eager to stay on the offensive as new Republican majorities are seated in Congress, the president plans to take a more bullish economic message on the road next week in something of an early test drive of his State of the Union message.

During stops in Michigan, Arizona and Tennessee, Obama plans to draw a connection between actions his administration took early in his presidency and increasingly positive economic trends in sectors such as manufacturing and housing.

Wow. Talk about a Washington bubble. Is he really going to tout his economic record? That’s called leading with your chin, and maybe before he falls flat on his face, he might want to examine a new Joint Economic Committee report card on Obamanomics.

On almost every measure examined, the 2009-2015 recovery since the recession ended in June of 2009 has been the meekest in more than 50 years.

Start with the broadest measure of economic progress: growth in output. The chart below compares the Obama growth pace with that of the average recovery coming out of the last eight recessions and with the Reagan recovery and over the same number of months (77). Democrats used to disparage the Reagan expansion as nothing special, yet the growth rate over the first 25 quarters under Reagan was 34 percent versus 14.3 percent under Obama.


Source: Forbes.com

How much does this matter? If we had grown at an average pace, GDP in 2015 would have been about $1.8 trillion higher. Under the Reagan recovery growth it would have been almost $2.8 trillion higher.

It is certainly true that every recession is different in cause and consequences, so the JEC dug deeper into the numbers. It examined GDP growth on a per capita basis. The Reagan recovery was abnormally strong in part because it happened when millions of baby boomers swept into the workforce, adding to growth. But even on a per capita basis, real GDP has grown only 9 percent versus 18.8 percent for the average recovery. That is the lowest of any post-1960 recovery.

Next the JEC measured job market trends. Again we see a failing record. Yes, official unemployment of just over 5 percent today is very low. But that’s the biggest lie in America–right up there with “we’re from the government and we’re here to help.”

The distortion is due to the fact that 94 million people in America over the age of 16 aren’t in the labor force. If job growth had been the same as the average recovery, we would have at least 5 million more Americans working—which is nearly the size of the workforce in Pennsylvania.

Amazingly, if we had had a Reagan-paced job recovery, we would today have at least 12 million more Americans working. Job creators are still on strike and it’s a result of EPA rules, Obamacare, tax hikes and other assaults against business.

When fewer people are working and wages are stagnant, incomes don’t grow. That’s the real sorry story of the Obama era. If the Obama recovery had been just average, in other words a C grade, JEC calculates that “after-tax per person income would be $3,339 (2009 dollars) per year higher.” Families can no longer be fooled with happy talk about “hope and change.” They feel the tough times.

The JEC’s dreary conclusion tells the whole story of the era of Obamanomics: ”On economic growth the Obama recovery ranks dead last.”

One other statistic that stands out on the Obama record as we begin his last year in office. The debt is nearly $19 trillion and by the time he leaves office our indebtedness will be almost double where it was when he entered the Oval Office. Just the interest payments alone cost half a trillion dollars a year.

This is the Obama legacy and if the White House wants to take ownership of this bleak record—it’s all theirs.

BBJ, it's so sad how the liberal media conveniently forget what a real economic recovery looks like. Despite the dismal economy, Obama, in his State of the Union speech, will claim how great he has done with the economic recovery over the last seven years and the liberal media will not challenge him on it. And of course the clueless left will believe every word Obama says. Pathetic!

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/the-difference-between-obamas-recovery-and-reagans/
 
At least it recovered. Conservatives are going to be glass half full when a Liberal is in office and liberals are going to be glass half full when a Conservative is in office. I wish you numb heads would quit your bull shitting and actually do something. Just a bunch of bitching and moaning.
 
This article leaves some things out.

One recovery was driven by the Federal Reserve, the other by debt heavy balance sheets, and financial collapse.

Wouldn't that make a difference in the strength of recovery?

Also Reagan damn near tripled the debt.

Another fun fact is that under Bush the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not counted towards the deficit but when Obama came into office he said they needed to be counted. This automatically increased the deficit under him even though this money was all spent under Bush.

But here is the thing. The first fundamental problem with all of this, is that people presume that politicians can have profound effects on the economy. Most economists would agree that they can't do nearly as much as the media likes us to believe. That said, it's a lot easier to screw up the economy than it is to improve it, as the large majority of economic policy is undeniably good.

Regardless of this, personally, I'd say (speculate) that we can judge the president's economic impact best once his policies are implemented in their entirety (and policies are repealed accordingly). Considering Obama's first term was diddled away by the Republican House, I'd certainly say he can't be blamed or appreciated that much for what we see today, but the effects of the Auto industry bailout/stimulus package which he supported were definitely far reaching, as well as some other decisions (ending wars, medicare, etc) so there is some basis to judge on.

The problem is that we certainly will never see an approval of all of Obama's economic decisions anytime in his presidency, so we're left with approved policies, but the most impactful ones are often ignored. Additionally, the political world loves to ignore the House and Senate, as well as local legislatures, because it's much simpler to pin it on one person. In all of history, economics have never been influenced by a president as much as modern news media likes to tell us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
Nice try MidTnBlues, but the response you copied was with respect to the following question: "I'm trying to reconcile these two pieces of information, assuming they're both true. This source shows that Obama's spending only rose a bit over Bush's (by the end), rather sharply, and has been going down since. This one says that the national debt went up under Obama in just his first term more than under Bush during his whole Presidency. Again, assuming both sources are correct, how does this work?"

The article I posted was comparing Obama's economic recovery with Reagan's. Even the title tells you what the article is about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politi...ama_has_been_spending_less_than_bush_why_has/
 
Yes, that was from my old reddit account because I have had this discussion way too many times and use that same response every time, so I just keep that one post bookmarked - the President does not have full control over the economy. There is far more variables that impact the economy other than just the President alone. Comparing Reagan to Obama's recovery is apples and oranges because they are in much different times with very different circumstances. And yes, I read your article and it is leaving a lot out when comparing two economic recoveries, but it is more than just the President, it is also the Congress during that time that has an impact as well as a trillion and one different other factors that go into it.

To answer this:

Again, assuming both sources are correct, how does this work?

Recession. People make less money which decreases revenue adding to debt. When the economy tanks the government pays more for social assistance or otherwise known as "mandatory spending" which spiked in 2008 and 2009. Decreased in 2010, back up in 2011 and remained constant 2012 - 2014 (and I am pulling that from memory, so may be inaccurate - CBO has the data). So his first term was trying to stabilize the economy and when you are in a financial crisis in year one of your presidency you will have those ballooned costs that his critics like to use. But as stated in my copy pasta that I like to use - you have to evaluate his policies once they are implemented in their entirety.

Speaking of the CBO, they just released the budget. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51110

Gives a really nice infographic of mandatory and discretionary spending so you can look at that and come to your own conclusion.
 
So you want me to believe you were both Fibert_Turtle and PoliticalHivemind on reddit? Seriously? Look, I'm not trying to be the forum's plagiarism police, I just don't want you to insult my intelligence. We're just never going to agree on politics. You're a strong believer in government intervention and I believe in laissez faire economics. But I believe we could have some commonality with music because I'm a big R&B fan. Perhaps we need to discuss music instead of politics.

Marvin was the best!



And the Rev. Al Green is awesome.

 
Last edited:
No, I deleted my account. I only copied what I said about the President not being the sole decision maker. Not sure what other part I copied. Maybe the part about the funding of the war which is not mine.

Actually, I am not on any sole position on most economic positions but I lean towards Keynesian principles. I believe there is such a thing of too much intervention but also too little. Economic policy should always be based off circumstances. But we can agree to disagree here. A lot of good things happened during both Presidential candidates time in office in my opinion. All Green is another great artist too. Cant beat good soul music.


I can definitely talk music. James Jamerson is one of my favorite bassists. Loved his work with Marvin Gaye in what's going on. He influenced a lot of great bassists including John Paul Jones who influenced me as a bass player.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT