"Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing"
"”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
To preface this debate topic, I wish to state that I never voted for Obama, and on *many* things I strongly oppose him. But after hearing so much from the right regarding his economic performance, I found this article from Forbes (not a liberal outlet) rather interesting.
“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration."
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Before questioning the validity of the claims, I highly suggest looking at the article and the figures that are being referenced. My question is, do you agree with the over-all claim that Obama was better than Reagan when it comes to the economy, and why?
Yes, because...
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No, because...
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
2
points
For those that think Reagan was so great, he is responsible for selling the U.S.A. out from under us. Under his Reaganomics plan, he allowed foreign investors to buy up the U.S.A. He boosted the economy buy selling out America. What a great president!!!!! "As late as 1976, Japanese direct investment in the United States never exceeded 4 percent of the total inward foreign direct investment. After 1976 the share rose annually. Soon Japanese direct investment in the United States was second only to that of the British. By 1989, Japanese direct investment represented roughly 17 percent of the total foreign direct investment in the United States. Japanese investments flowed into the electronics industry—into consumer products (TV production, for example) and producer ones (semiconductor manufacturing, for instance). By 1989 and 1990, Sony and its rival, Matsushita, were participants in $4.8 to $6.6 billion takeovers of American icons in Hollywood. This was all without precedent. And then there were the Japanese car companies: Honda built its first car at Marysville, Ohio, in 1982. Nissans, Toyotas, Mazdas came to be made in America, with production methods different from those used by the top three U.S. auto manufacturers. Ultimately, the American consumer got better quality cars not only from the Japanese, but from American producers as well. The Japanese also entered into American banking. By 1988, U.S. affiliates of Japanese banks and bank holding companies held 10.1 percent of U.S. banking assets. The Japanese became active in American government securities markets. The Japanese companies Nomura Securities, Daiwa Securities, Nikko Securities, and Yamaichi Securities served as primary dealers in the buying and selling of U.S. Treasury bonds." http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/ Regan's years as President; 1981-1989 {In February 2006, Richard Perle gave more insight into CFIUS when he related to CBS News his experience on the panel during the Reagan administration, "The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly low bureaucratic level." He also added, "I think it's a bit of a joke if we were serious about scrutinizing foreign ownership and foreign control, particularly since 9/11."} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommitteeonForeignInvestmentintheUnited_States Side: Yes, because...
The Japanese invested in the US economy. The Japanese became a part of the US economy. Companies who pay taxes and employ millions of Americans. The Japanese approach to business and employees has elements that, when adopted by us, changed our business models in positive ways. Source Where is your imagined problem with Reagan? Do you have any comments about Obama? Or are you just venting on the Japanese? Side: Yes, because...
0
points
Where is your imagined problem with Reagan? I didn't imagine he sold the USA to Japan, he did it. Since you don't seem to have a problem with foreign countries taking over the USA; What is your stance on immigration? By the way, it is you that imagines Reagan as something he is not. Do you have any comments about Obama? Yes. He has done a fair job of recovering from dumb-dumb's (Bush) disasters that stemmed from 9/11. Bush failing to act put the economy in downward spiral. Failure to control oil profits and insurance rate increases that followed 9/11, he let his friends get rich at everyone else's expense. Or are you just venting on the Japanese? I have no problem with the Japanese, but since you mentioned this you must have one. Side: No, because...
|
I'm afraid President Obama's ''Economic House'' is built on sand. The precarious and very temporary foundations of borrowing astronomical amounts from, among others, such sources as China which is a country with opposing political ideologies, will, sooner or later come crashing down with devastating consequences and hardship. What the clever Orientals have done is to lend America money with which to buy Chinese goods. Who and when is going to repay president Obama's reckless borrowing spree?, because it is going to have to be repaid. He has irresponsibly ''kicked the can down the road'' for some other poor sucker to pick up whilst he sits back and lets people like you pat him on the back for incurring the biggest national deficit the the history of the United States. America's children and grand children are going to have to pay a very heavy price, just like the Greeks are now, for Obama's imprudent ''live now, pay later'' policy. The Yanks have always been able to 'bite the bullet'' and face whatever hurdles are thrown at them, but Obama has opted for an easy ride. History won't be kind to him for his disgraceful legacy of eye-watering debt. Side: No, because...
Clearly this is no for a number of reasons. 1. Do you really believe Obama has created as many jobs as he appears to have done? What aboout all the jobs that were lost before him. There was quite a big loss of jobs due to the housing bubble just before Obama took office. I am not saying it was easy to add jobs, but there was a huge opportunity for him. 2. Growth...? Really, our growth is stagnant...it sucks. We are really barely growing and that is with the lowest interest rates in history. That is like throwing all fast balls right down the middle of the plate to the worlds best hitter...it is just easy. 3. Do you have more disposable income today than you did before Obama? Oh, HELL NO! I make about the same as I did years ago and now they tax the ever living hell out of me. I take home less than I did 8 years ago. So, I say F*^K Obama. He and his policies suck. His tax and spend and borrow policy sucks! I can't wait until we have a president who can run our country like a business...has a real foreign policy and doesn't rob from the rich to give to the lazy. Obama is nowhere near as good as Reagan on any of the jobs, growth or investing categories. Side: No, because...
The best counter to Hartung's article that I found seems to be this one. My attempt at a summary: Hartung used the U3 rate, then tried to discount the importance of the U6 rate. It seems that a look at the employment to population ratio(U6), reveals the opposite trend during both presidencies. So that seems to say that Obama's U3, the rate he keeps pointing to, is missleading and the more complete U6 rate can't be left out of an honest comparison. The actual U6 chart that Hartung used does show Reagan's ratio going up, while Obama's is going down. He then says this “As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment –including those on the fringe of the workforce –has remained pretty constant since 1994. The range of variance being less than 5%. So ---- that's true. But then he ignores the other obvious finding on the chart, that Reagan's goes up while Obama's goes down. Hartung tries to account for this by pointing to the baby boomer demographic. Which doesn't hold water as their rate is rising rather than falling. I'm gona post now before my tablet farts and I lose this whole thing. then i'll continue with the economy. Side: No, because...
Growth and investing Here Hartung tries to say that the stock market (at all time highs) shows Obamanomics has surpassed Reaganomics in growth. Two comments : 1.) The fantastic rise in the markets is hugely impacted by QE and interest rates. Notice the rapid decline in the markets as soon as anyone hints at a potential rise in interest rates as proof. 2.) The wealth being created is in the hands of the much reviled 1%'ers. Soooooo - Once again Obama sucks and there's no get'in around it. Side: No, because...
|
