First term records : Obama vs Reagan.

[User157088589849]

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Debt Growth Rate:

Reagan: 1981-1984
(1/930210000000)*(1662966000000-930210000000)*100.0 = 78.77%

Obama: 2009-2012
(1/10699804864612)*(15856367214324-10699804864612)*100.0 = 48.19%

Employment data during Reagan's first term:

Year    Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec
1981    7.5    7.4    7.4    7.2    7.5    7.5    7.2    7.4    7.6    7.9    8.3    8.5
1982    8.6    8.9    9.0    9.3    9.4    9.6    9.8    9.8    10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983    10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4    9.5    9.2    8.8    8.5    8.3
1984    8.0    7.8    7.8    7.7    7.4    7.2    7.5    7.5    7.3    7.4    7.2    7.3

These were the closest numbers I could find. The president would argue as he has been, that this was much a steeper recession affecting multiple facets of the economy, and that the economy has a positive trajectory.

Year    Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun    Jul    Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec
2009    7.8    8.3    8.7    8.9    9.4    9.5    9.5    9.6    9.8    10.0    9.9    9.9
2010    9.7    9.8    9.8    9.9    9.6    9.4    9.5    9.6    9.5    9.5    9.8    9.4
2011    9.1    9.0    8.9    9.0    9.0    9.1    9.1    9.1    9.0    8.9    8.7    8.5
2012    8.3    8.3    8.2    8.1    8.2    8.2    8.3    8.1             

Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[afleitch]

So as we know already, the national debt skyrockets whenever there's a Republican president

[Politico]

Those numbers are not even good economics, let alone good politics.

Unemployment is 8%. Millions more have given up hope, and have stopped looking for work (these people are excluded from the unemployment figure). Many are clinging to part-time jobs when they wish they had a full-time job (this is not reflected in the unemployment figure). Obama has created the first administration in history to run trillion dollar deficits for an entire presidential term. None of this held true in 1984. There is a reason why Reagan won 49 states and Obama will be lucky to get 270 EVs.

Furthermore, we had a severe spike in the deficit in 2008, as a result of the financial crisis caused by subprime mortgages (which were created by liberal policies), so of course Obama's "debt growth rate" is going to be significantly lower than a number of previous presidents. The debt growth rate is not the problem; perpetual trillion dollar deficits cannot exist, and this is the problem. Is Obama going to pledge tonight to not allow the tax rates to revert back to pre-2001 levels on January 1? Or is he going to pledge to cut spending? He needs to do one or the other because we cannot run a trillion dollar deficit year-in, year-out. We know Romney will cut spending and not raise taxes. What will Obama do?

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Those numbers are not even good economics, let alone good politics.

Unemployment is 8%. Millions more have given up hope, and have stopped looking for work (these people are excluded from the unemployment figure). Many are clinging to part-time jobs when they wish they had a full-time job (this is not reflected in the unemployment figure). Obama has created the first administration in history to run trillion dollar deficits for an entire presidential term. None of this held true in 1984. There is a reason why Reagan won 49 states and Obama will be lucky to get 270 EVs.

Furthermore, we had a severe spike in the deficit in 2008, so of course Obama's "debt growth rate" is going to be significantly lower than a number of previous presidents. The debt growth rate is not the problem; perpetual trillion dollar deficits cannot exist, and this is the problem. Is Obama going to pledge tonight to not allow the tax rates to revert back to pre-2001 levels on January 1? Or is he going to pledge to cut spending? He needs to do one or the other because we cannot run a trillion dollar deficit year-in, year-out.

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

That's kind of fortunate since it's not even close... not even a good socialist hell-hole..

[afleitch]

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

Such as...?

[Politico]

AMERICA WILL NOT GO THE WAY OF A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

Such as...?

Pick your poison. The news is littered with countries that are going down the tubes due to excessive, mismanaged government intervention. We must not replicate them.

[J. J.]

In term of actual jobs since the start of the term (January) to August of the election year.

Reagan:

+5,208,000

Obama:

-441,000

GWB during the same respective period:

+1,795,000

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

[LiberalJunkie]

In term of actual jobs since the start of the term (January) to August of the election year.

Reagan:

+5,208,000

Obama:

-441,000

GWB during the same respective period:

+1,795,000

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

[Politico]

In term of actual jobs since the start of the term (January) to August of the election year.

Reagan:

+5,208,000

Obama:

-441,000

GWB during the same respective period:

+1,795,000

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

This is NOT true. We had a recession in January - July 1980 and a double dip in July 1981 –
November 1982. The circumstances were obviously different from the 2008 financial crisis, but it is incorrect to say that Reagan had a "strengthening economy when he came into office."

What matters today: We do NOT have a strengthening economy as evidenced by the fact that job growth has lagged behind population growth for almost half a decade. Obama needs to man up and take responsibility for, at the very least, the last two years. If he wanted to run against George W. Bush, he should have ran in 2004. If the economy was actually strengthening, most people would want four more years of the last two years. That is obviously not the case.

[J. J.]

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

Ah, no. 

In 1/80, the unemployment rate was 6.30%; in 1/81, it was 7.50%.

In GWB's case:

1/05:  140,245,000

1/09:  142,187,000

+2,062,000 jobs

Now, yes, the economy was weakening at the start of Obama's term, with unemployment going from 5.0% to 7.8%, but it was at the start of Reagan's first term as well, and weakened (in terms of unemployment) though 1982.  The difference is, it improved under Reagan.  It hasn't under Obama.

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Facts stand up to historical revision. 

[Politico]

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

Ah, no.  

In 1/80, the unemployment rate was 6.30%; in 1/81, it was 7.50%.

In GWB's case:

1/05:  140,245,000

1/09:  142,187,000

+2,062,000 jobs

Now, yes, the economy was weakening at the start of Obama's term, with unemployment going from 5.0% to 7.8%, but it was at the start of Reagan's first term as well, and weakened (in terms of unemployment) though 1982.  The difference is, it improved under Reagan.  It hasn't under Obama.

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Facts stand up to historical revision.  

In all fairness, everybody agrees President Obama "inherited" a bad situation (although Bush did not "cause" the financial crisis; it is far more complicated than that). However, the same holds true with regards to many presidents. Some of them managed to turn things around whereas others did not. After almost four years of Obama, I think it is clear that Obama belongs in the latter category. The proof: Who wants four more years of the last two years?

Obama needs to man up and take responsibility for at least the last two years.

[pbrower2a]

In term of actual jobs since the start of the term (January) to August of the election year.

Reagan:

+5,208,000

Obama:

-441,000

GWB during the same respective period:

+1,795,000

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

Difference was Reagan had a strengthening economy when he came into office and Obama had a finacial meltdown. Also with dubya thats pretty much all the jobs he got in 8 years.

This is NOT true. We had a recession in January - July 1980 and a double dip in July 1981 –
November 1982. The circumstances were obviously different from the 2008 financial crisis, but it is incorrect to say that Reagan had a "strengthening economy when he came into office."

What matters today: We do NOT have a strengthening economy as evidenced by the fact that job growth has lagged behind population growth for almost half a decade. Obama needs to man up and take responsibility for, at the very least, the last two years. If he wanted to run against George W. Bush, he should have ran in 2004. If the economy was actually strengthening, most people would want four more years of the last two years. That is obviously not the case.

Reagan had stagflation. He needed an economic downturn to force people to lower their expectations. Unemployment was high because of millions of baby-boomers entering the workforce in the mass of low-paying jobs in retail sales and fast food. We went from an overheated economy to something more normal, one in which people who got travesty wages had to change their ways, remain dependent on parents, or live in poverty. Dubya was able to cover an ill-performing economy by fostering a corrupt boom in real estate with predatory financing -- a boom that did more to destroy capital than to create it. The last two years of the Bush II economy included the worst economic meltdown in nearly 80 years, and there is no quick fix for such a meltdown. The best analogue for the 2005-2007 meltdown was the first half of the three-year meltdown that began in September 1929. The relevant analogue for Barack Obama is the last two years of the Hoover Administration... except that this time Social Security, Medicare, FDIC insurance of bank deposits, and welfare programs of the Great Society are in place.

So there really is no good analogue.

There has been no double-dip downturn... but no speculative boom, either. Tea Party Republicans have of course frustrated any opportunity for infrastructure projects that might put people back to work, so those are not about to shut down with multitudes of recent construction workers competing for retail jobs.     

[J. J.]

Reagan had stagflation. He needed an economic downturn to force people to lower their expectations. Unemployment was high because of millions of baby-boomers entering the workforce in the mass of low-paying jobs in retail sales and fast food. We went from an overheated economy to something more normal, one in which people who got travesty wages had to change their ways, remain dependent on parents, or live in poverty.

Go back and reread.

The actual number of people employed increased under Reagan's first term.  We wentr from slumping economy to to one expanding by the end of Reagan's (and GWB's first term).  While this might change, Obama is the only president not to increase the number of jobs under his first term.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Reagan had stagflation. He needed an economic downturn to force people to lower their expectations. Unemployment was high because of millions of baby-boomers entering the workforce in the mass of low-paying jobs in retail sales and fast food. We went from an overheated economy to something more normal, one in which people who got travesty wages had to change their ways, remain dependent on parents, or live in poverty.

Go back and reread.

The actual number of people employed increased under Reagan's first term.  We wentr from slumping economy to to one expanding by the end of Reagan's (and GWB's first term).  While this might change, Obama is the only president not to increase the number of jobs under his first term.

As of a few days ago, it did change. We created 368,000 more jobs than previously thought, as was posted somewhere else here, so yes, Obama has increased jobs.