Unemployment OVER 10%

[Excaliber]

That was in 1982. The POTUS had inherited a nightmare of economic disaster. In mid term elections Republicans lost 27 seats to Democrats. The Presidents approval rating was in the tank at only 35%.

Some declared there would be a revolution, the President didn't have a snow balls chance of being re-elected.

Who was President in 1982? Ronald Reagan, who was re-elected! History repeats itself, the jury is out on Obama, only time will tell. If he turns around the economy in the next two years or so, he will be a hero. Re-election is all but certain!

[IndyCobra]

If he happens to turn the economy around, you are right. He will be re-elected. I think the big difference here is that RR understood what it took to create jobs, which is what REALLY turns the economy around. Unfortunately our current President appears to be clueless about how to do it. From his recent Jobs Summit, he was quoted as saying that small business needs to "work harder" at creating new jobs. Work harder??? WTF is that. Is that how jobs are created? Really? I guess as a small business owner, I better get my ass back to work and work harder at creating more jobs.

It is unfortunate that our current President is so clueless about how a capitalist economy works. But based upon his background and experience, I shouldn't be surprised that he has no clue. I just hope we survive his learning curve.

[Excaliber]

I think the big difference here is that RR understood what it took to create jobs...

A bit of a leap in faith, in my opinion. Reagan (an actor from Hollywood) had the good sense to listen to his advisors and then set policy (with his fingers crossed).

[blykins]

Yep, so that means Obama is really screwed....because if he listens to his advisors, he's got a bunch of libs in his cabinet with their hands in everyone's pockets.

[IndyCobra]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

A bit of a leap in faith, in my opinion. Reagan (an actor from Hollywood) had the good sense to listen to his advisors and then set policy (with his fingers crossed).

Isn't that how true leaders lead? No one has all the answers, you have to listen to and surround yourself with competent advisors. You can hate the man, but you can't argue with his results (as opposed to our current leader who has demonstrated negative economic results up to this point). Like I said, I hope he turns it around because I can't afford for him not to, but I'm not optomistic.

[Excaliber]

Indeed, the advisors are everything.

I might have to dig deeper into the whole '81/'82 Reagan era, I see some fascinating correlations here. Like Reagans initial move was to slash taxes, raising them higher than ever, in due time. What other policy decisions were put into place to address the significant job loss of the time? That sort of thing...

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

A bit of a leap in faith, in my opinion. Reagan (an actor from Hollywood) had the good sense to listen to his advisors and then set policy (with his fingers crossed).

History the bane of liberalism. RR had 10 times the political and Governmental experience that obummer has. Check the history, see if you can find the words Governor Reagan.

[Excaliber]

You mean, kind of like Senator Obama?

Palin was Governer too, her qualifications were being able to see Russia from her porch.

Actually, I'm not disputing Reagans ability to serve nor am I saying Obama is fully qualified, yet... I just find the similiarities in economic conditions at the time of their election interesting. Recessions are cyclatory in nature, when this one is done, we will see another in time.

It was the sudden economic downturn that got Obama elected, that more than any other single factor. A classic knee jerk reaction by the voters, history shows it over and over. While it does matter HOW we got in this mess, regardless of "how", the current party in power WILL always pay the price, no matter who they are. "Timing" might have saved Reagans butt, as much as anything else. "Timing" is on Obama's side as well, good or bad, that's just the way it is.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

You mean, kind of like Senator Obama?

Palin was Governer too, her qualifications were being able to see Russia from her porch.

Actually, I'm not disputing Reagans ability to serve nor am I saying Obama is fully qualified, yet... I just find the similiarities in economic conditions at the time of their election interesting. Recessions are cyclatory in nature, when this one is done, we will see another in time.

It was the sudden economic downturn that got Obama elected, that more than any other single factor. A classic knee jerk reaction by the voters, history shows it over and over. While it does matter HOW we got in this mess, regardless of "how", the current party in power WILL always pay the price, no matter who they are. "Timing" might have saved Reagans butt, as much as anything else. "Timing" is on Obama's side as well, good or bad, that's just the way it is.

Do you mean the very JUNIOR, part time Senator BHO? The one that barely knew how to vote anything but 'present'. That bareassed meaningless rookie. Is that who you mean?

[Excaliber]

Yeah, that brilliant guy, currently POTUS extraordinare!

[J. T. Toad]

Ernie,

Thanks for bringing me out of my hole. You have been taking far too much liberty in your postings, so, again, "let's dance."

1) I won't even bother to explain to you the economic differences between the Carter/Reagan and the Clintoin/Bush/Obama. Their respective climates are so vastly different to state otherwise is truly ignorant.

2) Palin never said that. To include any writing which suggests otherwise is truly perpetuating the ignorance.

http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.c...bama-skit.html


Dan40 watch out for the threatening emails.... what was it you wrote to me? Ah yes, "grow a pair" before you "nuke my arshe?"

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

A bit of a leap in faith, in my opinion. Reagan (an actor from Hollywood) had the good sense to listen to his advisors and then set policy (with his fingers crossed).

BIG difference you conveniently left out.Yes the actor listened but before that he still campaigned on the principles of economics based on the private sector. But the community organizer has time and again base his Hugo Chavez economic principles based on big government. The comparison numbers you give are meaningless.

[blykins]

Ernie, if he's such a brilliant president, please name ONE THING that he's done. One.

[Excaliber]

Not that naming "one" thing will make any difference to those that will not see, but, I shall attempt to answer the question.

When Obama came to office he IMMEDIATLY took action, talk about hit the ground running. The swiftness with which he took control of a very bad situation was stunning to virtually everybody. And a serious rebuke to Clinton, in my opinion, that his lack of leadership skills would cause a long delay in taking action. She and many other's were dead wrong! So WHAT did he do, immediately?

With the subprime lending mess in full "boom", the unprecedented financial crisis was causing unprecedented economic failure through out the WORLD! Obama's response was: the Recovery Act, the bank capitalization program, the housing plan, the strengthening of the non-bank credit market and the auto plan among other things. Bold and controversial moves. It's easy to arm chair quarter back those decisions, then and now.

Fact is, many of the banks are now scrambling to pay back those loans. The auto market, rather than dieing, appears to be on an upswing. The credit market is stabilizing. We ARE in a deep hole, it WILL take time, but I think were on the right track. Time will tell...
The same questions were asked concerning Reagan's response as well, no way the POTUS can win full support during a crisis this deep, then or now.

Toad, good to see you "out of your hole". Palin? To late for her, 90% of American citizens believe it, thank you Tina! I like her latest quote (Palin, not Tina) concerning her book tour. "The view is SO much better from inside the bus than from under it."

[SPF2245]

Obama IS NOT even close to Reagan...why:
1) Reagan REDUCED Gov't spending (*** Removing Social Security/Medicare expenses from his budget*
2) Reagan REDUCED Gov't size
3) Reagan REDUCED Taxes (targeted the rich for the larger decreases to increase their personal spending, 'cause when you tax the rich harder, they spend more time hiding what they have then spending it)
4) Reagan continued the Gov't trend to leave industry alone (ie move away from regulation which hinders growth)

Now, what part of that is Obama...answer, NONE. The banks and auto industry are "scrambling" to repay the debt because they now realize Obama isn't concerned about help as much as ultimate control. Don't believe me, ask former GM CEO Wagoner. He's out of control with spending, his Czars are a bunch of idiots trying to run businesses they have no practical experience in running and all the while O is running around the world like some Paris Hilton wanna-be.

[Excaliber]

You missed the point, WHEN Reagan was faced with HIS crisis, he took substantial heat for his decisions, his poll numbers plummeted, he was considered UNELECTABLE for a second term. He was considered little more than a Hollywood actor "playing politics". Now I LIKE Reagan, but those were the facts in 1982. I just see a similiar trend here with Obama. Now maybe the "lip shooters" and the "polls" are right, maybe Obama, the country, IS headed for disaster. Maybe, maybe not, Reagan sure surprised a lot of people when the smoke cleared. The jury is still out on Obama...

We could also conclude, from this comparison, that "poll's" are pretty pathetic, dang near useless right up until election time, THEN they carry weight. Just when the fat lady is about to sing, until then... There little more than a knee jerk reaction to disillusioned voters who want action delivered in the same time frame their Microwave oven delivers action, NOW!!

By the way, Reagan dramatically INCREASED taxes when the smoke cleared. DEREGULATION resulted in the biggest economic disaster this country has seen to date, "sub prime lending".

[joyridin']

Wow..what a discussion this is turning out to be. How can the two of them be compared considering what has happened in the last 25 years of our economy?

Reagan had it relatively easy. All he had to do was get the AMERICAN economy afloat again. Obama has to try to get the world started again...and you can't spend American dollars to do that. The problem is, many of the jobs that were created under the Reagan Administration do not exist anymore. They were manufacturing jobs created by his building a large military structure. Want Obama to get the economy started? Simple thing to do...start another multi-trillion dollar war like Bush did and our economy will take off like a rocket again. Of course, we'll have to borrow another $5 trillion to pay for it all, but we'll be booming.

Sorry...but the age of Wal-Mart arrived in/about 2000. A huge part of our economy is now based on pencil pushers and service work, so getting this economy going again is going to be really tough. Nobody wants to pay for a service they can do themselves and every consumable item we buy anymore is made overseas. Something Reagan didn't have to deal with a whole lot.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

You missed the point, WHEN Reagan was faced with HIS crisis, he took substantial heat for his decisions, his poll numbers plummeted, he was considered UNELECTABLE for a second term. He was considered little more than a Hollywood actor "playing politics". Now I LIKE Reagan, but those were the facts in 1982. I just see a similiar trend here with Obama. Now maybe the "lip shooters" and the "polls" are right, maybe Obama, the country, IS headed for disaster. Maybe, maybe not, Reagan sure surprised a lot of people when the smoke cleared. The jury is still out on Obama...

We could also conclude, from this comparison, that "poll's" are pretty pathetic, dang near useless right up until election time, THEN they carry weight. Just when the fat lady is about to sing, until then... There little more than a knee jerk reaction to disillusioned voters who want action delivered in the same time frame their Microwave oven delivers action, NOW!!

By the way, Reagan dramatically INCREASED taxes when the smoke cleared. DEREGULATION resulted in the biggest economic disaster this country has seen to date, "sub prime lending".

Polls,
Why were they important right after election time and Obum was super high up? Then he plummets to the mid 40's and polls become meaningless. Just a couple of months ago it was UNIVERSALLY accepted that Obum dropped more and faster than ANY previous pres. But now there are NEW "old" polls that claim that Reagan's drop matched Obum's. But the OLD "old" polls show Reagan still at 55% well into his second year in office, not down in the 40's after 9 months. And that is after RR fired 12,000 ATC employees for their illegal strike.
Since actual history is so bothersome to liberals, they do not hesitate to rewrite it with their preferred outcome.

[Excaliber]

Why were the polls significant right AFTER Obama was elected anymore than they are in the first year, or even second year? Simply put, they are not very useful at all. It's simply a way of measuring current attitude. But means little if no election is scheduled at the same time. It's going to get real quiet in here when Obama polls show 55% or more support during his second year.

My prediction is this: LIKE REAGAN who was seriously down for the count early in his Presidency, Obama WILL turn things around and WILL emerge as a "hero". It is likely, as a result, he will be elected for a second term! There are indeed some interesting comparisons that could be made between the two administrations.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Why were the polls significant right AFTER Obama was elected anymore than they are in the first year, or even second year? Simply put, they are not very useful at all. It's simply a way of measuring current attitude. But means little if no election is scheduled at the same time. It's going to get real quiet in here when Obama polls show 55% or more support during his second year.

My prediction is this: LIKE REAGAN who was seriously down for the count early in his Presidency, Obama WILL turn things around and WILL emerge as a "hero". It is likely, as a result, he will be elected for a second term! There are indeed some interesting comparisons that could be made between the two administrations.

My prediction is he will be BELOW Bush low levels by the 2010 elections. The nation is lazy and apathetic, but not fools. Soon his only support will be of like kind, fools and or leeches! Stimulus 2, Cap 'n' Tax and Education reform are all ahead of us. Right now Obum 100% approves what the Democraps in Congress are doing with health care. Between them they've amassed over 4000 pages of nonsense to address this problem. The prices [controlled by politicians] are a little high. And a few lazy leeches don't have insurance. They DO have health care just not insurance. 4000 + pages to fix that near non-problem? He is totally left and lost in liberal Utopian dreamland of unsupportable warm and fuzzy programs. More people realize it every day! You have what seems to be a functioning brain, you too will someday come to realize he is worthless as a leader and as a president.