It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economic Recovery Analysis: Obama vs Bush 43 vs Reagan

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Stephanie Cutter, an Obama surrogate, counted the jobs gain from the Obama Administration's “Low Point” going forward. If we use that same analysis, here are the results. Folks, I didn't cherry pick or lemon pick these numbers. I am being "consistent" to what an Obama surrogate, Cutter, suggested.

Economic Recovery Analysis: Obama vs. Bush 43 vs. Reagan

Obama:
February 2010 U.S. nonfarm payrolls = 129,244,000
July 2012 U.S. nonfarm payrolls = 133,245,000 (gain of 4.0 million jobs in 27 months)

And if you measure the Bush recovery the same way, the “Low Point” was in August 2003.

Bush 43:
August 2003 U.S. nonfarm payrolls = 129,820,000
November 2005 U.S. nonfarm payrolls = 134,654,000 (gain of 4.8 million jobs in 27 months)

If you measure the Reagan recovery the same way, he created 8.0 million new jobs in 27 months.

Another Economic Recovery Analysis:
Obama:
March 2010 U.S. Private-Sector Jobs = 106,900,000
July 2012 U.S. Private-Sector Jobs = 111,300,000(an increase of 4.4 million jobs in “28” months)

The “Low Point” for employment under Reagan was December 1982

Reagan:
December 1982 U.S. Private-Sector Jobs = 72,800,000
March 1985 U.S. Private-Sector Jobs = 80,400,000(an increase of 7.7 million in 27 months)

If you measure the Bush 43 recovery the same way, he created 4.3 million new jobs in 27 months.


Nonfarm payrolls from Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Obama Campaign Caught Pulling Another Fast One
nation.foxnews.com...

Private sector by Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

Barack Obama's campaign says his recovery has outpaced Ronald Reagan's in job creation
www.politifact.com...

Sorry, Stephanie Cutter, the Obama recovery hasn’t created more jobs than the Reagan recovery By James Pethokoukis
www.aei-ideas.org...

Obama, Reagan and the economy
www.politico.com...




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I love when people say Presidents make jobs. I love it because then I know they are complete idiots. I don't have to waste my time talking to them anymore.

If you are looking for a job, don't look at the president, look at yourself.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by litterbaux
I love when people say Presidents make jobs. I love it because then I know they are complete idiots. I don't have to waste my time talking to them anymore.

If you are looking for a job, don't look at the president, look at yourself.


Stimulus is not a fairly tale...

On words alone the President can make the stock market lose or gain 300 points in a day. He can take 800 billion and actually put it in the right sectors and create jobs... I guess he picked the wrong sectors...lol

A company prospers it needs more workers... a company in decline needs less... it is simple and the President's policies can create either situation.

Edit as example:

If he put a tariff on China imports and reduced corporate taxes, jobs would flood back into America because corporation just know the bottom line to earnings and if earnings were better with American workers they would go with American workers.

This is an extremely simple model, but it shows the President's powers if he so elected.


edit on 8-9-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 


Ignorant to think he doesn't have any influence. Yes he doesn't create them first hand but he can create the environment in which jobs can be created.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Presidents don't create jobs, but they have great influence over how jobs are created.

For example, employment is at a low right now at least partly due to Obamacare. Obamacare will make it more expensive for most companies to hire new employees, but we're not sure by now much exactly; so businesses are slowing hiring because of the risk. If the hit turns out to be especially bad then we can expect slow job growth for quite a long time.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
That's one of the major obstacles in a pro-business, job creating environment. Kudos!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
Presidents don't create jobs, but they have great influence over how jobs are created.

For example, employment is at a low right now at least partly due to Obamacare. Obamacare will make it more expensive for most companies to hire new employees, but we're not sure by now much exactly; so businesses are slowing hiring because of the risk. If the hit turns out to be especially bad then we can expect slow job growth for quite a long time.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by litterbaux
I love when people say Presidents make jobs. I love it because then I know they are complete idiots.


Speaking of the characteristic "complete idiots"... enter the OP's thread as well as the threads and posts of the other Republican (paid?) cheerleaders here! Every time they post something, they really earn that title!!


Probably earning lots of dirty money too from super wealthy folks funding the Right like, um, folks like maybe the Koch brothers from what I keep hearing...




edit on 8-9-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Self-sufficency is something you know nothing about.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

Originally posted by litterbaux
I love when people say Presidents make jobs. I love it because then I know they are complete idiots.


Speaking of the characteristic "complete idiots"... enter this thread as well as the threads and posts of the other Republican (paid?) cheerleaders here! Every time they post something, they really earn that title!!


Probably earning lots of dirty money too from super wealthy folks funding the Right like, um, folks like the Koch brothers from what I keep hearing...
edit on 8-9-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Gee...who wouldve thought that the United States had a smaller population in the 80's?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Of course what you ignored were the "low points" for Reagan and Bush43 came more than two years into their administrations, and the fact that Bush43 inherited a roaring economy/budget surplus. Obama came into office just as the economy was hitting rock bottom - 4.4 million jobs lost because of the Great Recession of 2008-09. As Clinton said of Obama, he first had to 'put a floor under the crash', before he could begin recovery.

Just look at the state the US economy was in, circa 2008:


STOCK SHOCK FELT ROUND THE WORLD. Gets ‘nasty’ as Lehman tanks, Merrill vanishes, AIG wobbles
[New York Daily News, September 16, 2008]

Depression Coming? Boil Some Beans; Ladies Who Quilt Give Tips On Surviving Tough Times
[Albuquerque Journal, September 21, 2008]

One day on the brink On Wednesday, it seemed U.S. economy might collapse
[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 21, 2008]

‘Great Depression’ closer than U.S. admits, report finds
[Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, September 27, 2008]

Will Bush become the new Hoover?
[Politico, September 19, 2008]

Developers bend under housing meltdown
[Colorado Springs Gazette, September 27, 2008]

Depression seen possible
[Florida News-Press, September 27, 2008]

Wall Street Meltdown Continues
[CNN, September 17, 2008]

Is It Really the Next ‘Great Depression’?
[NPR, September 19, 2008]

Behind Closed Doors, Warnings of Calamity
[The New York Times, September 20, 2008]


The recession/depression didn't just magically vanish because some new guy came into office. It hit him head on, and he had to deal with it. WHILE dealing with the most obstructionist, defeatist Congress EVER.

It were short-sighted GOP policies that crashed the economy and cost the United States millions of jobs as they continue to cater to the 'trickle-down' notion of rewarding the rich and facilitating wealth extraction and offshoring, at the expense of the middle class. That puts Obama's job's recovery in a different light.

One fact can't be denied - over the past 51 years, the Republicans have held the Oval Office 28 years to the Democrats 23 years. And in the course of those years, Democrats have produced 44 million jobs to Republicans 24 million. Roughly twice the number of jobs in fewer years.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Good post, keep trying! Kudos!

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


Of course what you ignored were the "low points" for Reagan and Bush43 came more than two years into their administrations, and the fact that Bush43 inherited a roaring economy/budget surplus. Obama came into office just as the economy was hitting rock bottom - 4.4 million jobs lost because of the Great Recession of 2008-09. As Clinton said of Obama, he first had to 'put a floor under the crash', before he could begin recovery.

Just look at the state the US economy was in, circa 2008:


STOCK SHOCK FELT ROUND THE WORLD. Gets ‘nasty’ as Lehman tanks, Merrill vanishes, AIG wobbles
[New York Daily News, September 16, 2008]

Depression Coming? Boil Some Beans; Ladies Who Quilt Give Tips On Surviving Tough Times
[Albuquerque Journal, September 21, 2008]

One day on the brink On Wednesday, it seemed U.S. economy might collapse
[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 21, 2008]

‘Great Depression’ closer than U.S. admits, report finds
[Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, September 27, 2008]

Will Bush become the new Hoover?
[Politico, September 19, 2008]

Developers bend under housing meltdown
[Colorado Springs Gazette, September 27, 2008]

Depression seen possible
[Florida News-Press, September 27, 2008]

Wall Street Meltdown Continues
[CNN, September 17, 2008]

Is It Really the Next ‘Great Depression’?
[NPR, September 19, 2008]

Behind Closed Doors, Warnings of Calamity
[The New York Times, September 20, 2008]


The recession/depression didn't just magically vanish because some new guy came into office. It hit him head on, and he had to deal with it. WHILE dealing with the most obstructionist, defeatist Congress EVER.

It were short-sighted GOP policies that crashed the economy and cost the United States millions of jobs as they continue to cater to the 'trickle-down' notion of rewarding the rich and facilitating wealth extraction and offshoring, at the expense of the middle class. That puts Obama's job's recovery in a different light.

One fact can't be denied - over the past 51 years, the Republicans have held the Oval Office 28 years to the Democrats 23 years. And in the course of those years, Democrats have produced 44 million jobs to Republicans 24 million. Roughly twice the number of jobs in fewer years.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
That's one of the major obstacles in a pro-business, job creating environment. Kudos!

Originally posted by SpookyFoxMulder
Presidents don't create jobs, but they have great influence over how jobs are created.

For example, employment is at a low right now at least partly due to Obamacare. Obamacare will make it more expensive for most companies to hire new employees, but we're not sure by now much exactly; so businesses are slowing hiring because of the risk. If the hit turns out to be especially bad then we can expect slow job growth for quite a long time.


IMO the biggest problem facing America is that Obama's anti-corporation policies are making the US less competitive. In fact, over Obama's term, the US dropped from #1 in global competitiveness to #7. So when Obama appeals to his base by calling for more regulation on "greedy" outsourcing companies, that actually has the effect of creating more outsourcing by driving business overseas.

As far as I'm concerned, people can get political about social issues all day long. If candidates want to politicize gay marriage until they're blue in the face, let them. But when it comes to economic policy, we must accept that we need to make the US more attractive for business in order to bring jobs back. Heaping more burdens on business will only drive that business elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SpookyFoxMulder
 


Obama does not have "anti-corporation" policies, that's a Neocon myth, in fact corporations are thriving under Obama and corporate profits are hitting all-time highs. What's driving down America's "competitiveness" according to the WEF (World Economic Forum, the source for the stat you posted) are several factors:

Secondary Education (or lack of) among workers, and the cost of getting a degree in America versus the world at large, and how American workers are trained/educated (American 15-yr olds rank 50th in science and reading - hard for a company to be competitive when our work force is borderline illiterate)

Credit - the AAA to AA+ downgrade due to the budget ceiling stalls affected how easy it is for a company to move here or obtain credit here.

The state of America's institutional environment which they cite as "raising concern among business leaders, particularly related to low public trust in politicians and concerns about government inefficiency."

The state of America's banking environment, with the turmoil making it difficult for a company to decide how and when to obtain credit, who should hold the debt, etc.

Small factors like the ACA are cited as positives, since it makes America more attractive to foreign worker recruitment.

Other factors like living standards (America ranks 10th according to London-based Legatum Institute's world prosperity index), Life expectancy (we rank 70th), poverty, etc.

Then Cost of Living and Inflation (again, we rank too high to be competitive)

All told, you can see "blaming Obama" is nothing short of foolishness when citing "America's competitiveness" - the factors that determine our competitiveness are years in the making, and the negative impacts come from the policies promoted mostly by Republicans, where as Democrats tend to push policies (education, health, trade) that make us more competitive. Most Repubs OPPOSE those policies because they are "socialist" - but look at who ranks number 1 in world competition according to the WEF: Switzerland (Switzerland tops World Economic Forum global competitive rankings). If you want to be more competitive, be more like Switzerland.

Link: World Economic Forum

Hope this has been of help.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RancorXXX
 


Good post.

The WEF has "12 pillars" they judge a nation's economic competition by.

The "first pillar" is the Institutional Environment, which as your cited, is the 'legal and administrative' framework by which all companies/individuals operate in. They claim our faith in our institutions has been shaken, a lack of trust, that has caused us to drop on the scale of competition. After the economic collapse, the banking crisis, and the government subservient role to Wall Street and it's cabal of fraudsters - who can blame us for "lacking faith" in our institutions?

The "second pillar" is Infrastructure

The US still has a good infrastructure but it lacks certain things - good public transport, and aging bridges/utilities. Our lack of "nation building" at home is hurting us.

The "third pillar" is Macroeconomics.

Biggest factor hurting us here is our large interest payments on past debt.

The "fourth pillar" is Health and Primary Education.

We have great health care but it's too expensive. Most get by WITHOUT health care. We rank low in terms of life expectancy. We have decent primary education but not great - it all depends on where you live. Too much of our work force is, as you pointed out, under-educated or illiterate. Training programs are too few and far between or underfunded.

The "fifth pillar" is Higher Education and Training.

Again, the US lags in these areas. We don't invest nearly enough in educating our workforce to make them competitive and our secondary education system is more about profits than quality. Putting a kid through college saddles middle class families with deep debt and we have a slew of rip-off low-quality "institutes" designed to do nothing more than separate students from their money.

For the rest of the "12 pillars", the US is still competitive. I agree with you on the idea that the things making us "less competitive" are so-called "socialist" investments.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join