Wednesday, September 10, 2014

When It Comes to Job Creation, Obama Doesn't Hold a Candle to Reagan
by Brian Dimitrovic
Forbes Magazine

When Ronald Reagan became president in January 1981, the nation had just endured a recession the year before. Then another recession materialized on Reagan’s watch in a few months’ time, in the fall of 1981.
The labor force participation rate—which measures the proportion of the population at work or looking—had been rising throughout the 1970s, but it took a drop down, to 63.5%, as the latter recession came. Unemployment, at 7.5% when Reagan took office, shot all the way up to 10.8% within a year and a half.
Bad stuff early in Reagan’s first term. Fewer and fewer and people who wanted them had jobs –the increasing unemployment rate. And fewer and fewer people either had or were even looking for work–the decreasing labor force participation rate.
As these malign developments congealed, Reagan was putting together a policy response. This consisted of cuts in all rates of the income tax; a program to soften the effects of governmental regulation on the economy; and encouragement of Federal Reserve efforts not to print too much money.
Well (Ronald Reagan always said, “Well”), that policy sure came through with force. By the time Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, in October of that year, the unemployment rate was back down to 7.4%, basically the same level that prevailed when he had taken office, and well off the 10.8% peak of two years before. And the participation rate was up to 64.4%.
Thus as Reagan made his bid for a second term, in the month before the election, unemployment was decreasing as more and more people were looking for jobs. This meant that there had to be quite a few more jobs in the economy in October 1984 compared to January 1981. Indeed there were: 5.7 million more.
It is uncanny what a comparison can be made with respect to this experience and that of the nation under President Obama.
When Obama took office in January 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%, just as it is this month of October 2012 as he runs for re-election, having got as bad as 10% (in 2010). This is essentially identical to the Reagan record: unemployment in the mid- or high-7% range at the beginning and end, with a peak at 10% or just above.
Here’s the big difference. When it comes to the labor force participation rate, under Obama it too fell to a trough of 63.5%, as it did for Reagan, but now it stands at…63.6%.
Therefore, there must be a rather massive difference in job creation—in total employment in the nation. Sure enough, this is true. The number of jobs in the United States is a mere 800,000 more now than when Obama took office. Again, the net gain under Reagan was about 5 million more than that.

As goes policy, just like Reagan, Obama had his big splash. His program was of course rather the opposite on all counts. It consisted in tax rebates and such (as opposed to cuts in marginal rates) coupled with big spending; a waving through of major Congressional efforts at regulation; and encouragement of Federal Reserve money-printing.
Under Reagan, pushing 6 million new jobs; under Obama, little net job creation. Both presidents tried major efforts, one supply-side, one Keynesian, at getting the economy through recessionary periods whose employment and participation issues were the same. One president’s record is of clear success, and the other is of the absence of success.
The standard riposte to all this is to claim that the economic conditions Obama was dealing with were worse than what confronted Reagan. But the numbers belie this argument. The unemployment beginning points, peaks, and participation troughs in both the Reagan first term and the Obama term are essentially identical. So the conditions were, objectively, the same.
Which is to say that Ronald Reagan pursued the superior policy. Surely this is the reason Reagan won 49 of 50 states in the election of November 1984. Reagan got the country out of the problem as it existed: 5.7 million new jobs. The same problem existed early in Obama’s presidency, and thus as the election intensifies today under the auspices of so few new net jobs, that presidency is embattled.

NOTE: To the Army of hypercritical Fault Finders and Refutationists: Yes, I DID notice this article is two years old, and I DO know that the same Forbes Magazine recently reversed its position on Reagan versus Obama and the Economy. 

I just refuse to accept figures derived from self-serving GOVERNMENT BUREAUS or slanted, twisted "facts" zealously reported by leftists such as Paul Krugman, The Nation, Buzzflash, Truthout, The DailyKos,, etc. 



  1. I always liked what Reagan said about government and how it has an uncanny knack of growing like Topsy becoming a bloated useless institution.

    I guess that's my interpretation but he did say: If somebody knocks on your door saying they're from the government and they're here to help don't let them in.

    The big difference today and yesterday in the days of Reagan is the attitude of most toward government hand-outs. Amazing what a few food stamps and a free cell phone will do to create a dependent constituency.

  2. The problem, Waylon, has a lot to do with changing demographics. We are literally not the same people we were even twenty years ago.

    The Left has been determined to transform us into a non-white, atheistic, ignorant, misinformed, weak-minded, greedy, government-dependent nation of arrogant beggars for many decades.

    Their success in implementing the 1965 Immigration Act, which virtually guaranteed we would sustain a non-white majority in a generation or two has done much to help achieve this goal.

  3. I find it ironic that all you Liberal and Progressive Idiots keep sending your MORONS back to office in the House and in Congress, and yes even to the Presidency, while mocking those you think are dumb like George Bush and Sarah Palin.
    My advice is to look at the IDIOTS who are there right now and who are wearing the Liberal and Progressive labels. And who are Dumber than dirt.. From the President to the Vice President to the Idiots like Reid, Pelosi etc etc. and etc...

  4. The left equates sounding intelligent when reading off a TelePrompTer to actual intelligence.
    My question is how can someone be totally clueless in the first presidential debate and then being all knowing in the 2nd?
    I have my theories but if you get a chance watch the 2nd debate with scrutiny

  5. Right NOW we have one of the MOST CORRUPT and the MOST INEPT presidents in our History, a man who could not find any job outside of politics or Organizing a “Community” And these IDIOTS over at that CESS-POOL called a blog, have nothing better to blog about but poking fun at Sarah Palin.
    Perhaps this is the reason why you people are called the names that you object to so vehemently..

    Think about this..Bottom line, Obama is a liar, and a corrupt do nothing inept wannabe , ans Sarah Palin didn't lie about anything nor has she ever done anything illegal.
    The only negative thing that I can think about Ms. Plain is that she don’t play Golf or Basketball, nor does she Boogie with the stars.

  6. he only thing seriously wrong with Sarah Palin beside her hairdo is her speech patterns. She is a fierce rhotic speaker with a shrill, high-pitched voice that becomes an outright squeal when she gets worked up. This makes her sound like an uneducated Yahoo -- an ignorant hick -- when in fact she is a very intelligent person who has a lot of courage.

    It IS possible to corect such flaws as many of he great Hollywood stars of the past would attest.

    The late Margaret Thatcher began life as a cockney. Her father was a grocer, and the family lived over the store. She transformed herself into Lady Thatcher, a role she played almost as well as Janet Brown her best known imitator in Britain. ;-)

    God bless cultivated speech and clear, precise diction! Hick accents should be eliminated with skilled vocal coaching as should low-class working class accents of all kinds.

    We were put in this earth to make the most of our potential, not to limp along fat dumb and happy with our inferiority or mediocrity.

    Sound snobbish? TOUGH! I'm dead serious. Her shrill rhotic accent and her inappropriate Barbie Doll hairdo are the very things that drag her down.

    1. But does that make her. " dumb "? I don't think so, does ghT make her an object to make fun of ? Not if the Moochie shouldn't be made fun of. And that's a no, no in the eyes of the self rightious Libs ..

  7. Listen, Les.






  8. RN,proves my point.He's here crying like a 10 year old girl about one of his idiotic braindroppings being scrubbed yet in his favorite chatroom no dissension is tolerated or posted.

    But,RN kisses the ample keister of Boston Chubby with his tail wagging hopping to get a treat.

  9. In fairness Rusty, many conservatives get their views published at Shaws blog. As long as they are civil and on point.

    Just ask people like Lisa, Free, SilverFiddle, Skud, and many others...

    It is when folks are personally insulting, that they get wiped. Is it too much to ask people to use civil language and refrain from personal attacks?

  10. I've long felt that RN is a horse's ass. Normally, I don't talk like that, as you know, but frankly. FT, I think your response is long overdue. That man is insufferable. People who think too well of themselves and have a generally low opinion of others usually are.

    -----------> Katharine Heartburn

  11. Kate is exactly right!

    RN seems to be in some stage of mental infirmity.

    ~ A. Lurker


  12. RN is the person you would like to buy for what they are worth and then sell them for what they think they are worth.

    IMO RN is a pompous blowhard...the modern day Cliff Clavin.

  13. Katharine Heartburn
    said: "I've long felt that RN is a horse's ass"

    And so do I!, Only I see him as a Two Faced Horse's Ass

  14. And don't come back

  15. And here we go again.

    You see what one self-centered individual with a perverse turn of mind can do much too easily in the blogosphere.

    The discussion was SUPPOSED to be about the relative merits of President Reagan's economic policies as opposed to those of President Obama.

    You can see how many followed that lead after the incursions of one spiteful, determined troll.

    Of course it's EVERYONES fault for allowing this to happen.

    And please let me remind everyone once again that BOILERPLATE is not welcome here.

    I'd rather have two or three intelligent, well-meaning responses that stay in topic than tons of cut-and-paste garbage.

    Insulting ANYONE -- or denigrating anyone ELSE'S blog -- is FORBIDDEN here.

    If you want to indulge in unfettered Freedom of Expression -- no matter how moronic or distasteful -- DO IT ON YOUR OWN BLOG.

  16. Good morning, Dave,

    I happen to agree in the main with your latest remark, except I don't think anyone likes being addressed as "you people." I know darned well Negroes, Jews, Indians, Puerto Ricans, the Handicapped, the Aged and Infirm don't like it. Neither do Homosexuals.

    FYI: I lost faith in George W. Bush the day he mewled, "Islam is a religion of peace" in an address to the nation shortly after te terrible event that changed our lives forever exactly thirteen years ago today. I felt exactly as though I were trapped in an elevator car high up in a skyscraper and just heard the cable snap.

    Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians hardly constitute of monolithic power bloc. There is far more dissension in the ranks of the RIght than there appears to be on the Left.

    Though I occasionally indulge in outbursts of hyperbolic invective against Democrats -- usually with tongue-in-cheek -- I do my best to "keep a civil tongue in my head."

    I cannot be responsible for the distasteful behavior of others, though I do my best to censor it out of existence here. "Take it out into the street or the alley" is the motto here. As Lucianne Goldberg says at her site: "This is a SALON not a SALOON." §;-D

  17. Oh, and ine more thing, Dave. You said, "In fairness, Rusty, many conservatives get their views published at Shaw's blog. As long as they are civil and on point."

    That is true, Dave. Miss Shaw and I have been quite friendly in private correspondence, and I hope you've noticed I will not put up with catcalls, guffaws, crude insults directed at her -- a policy for which I've drawn a tremendous amount of flack.

    HOWEVER, I am routinely treated to frankly vicious insults from Miss Shaw's "regulars," and can't help noticing that NO ONE over there EVER has a good word to say about me, and Miss Shaw allows the taunts, the gibes, the baseless accusations, the insults and the name-calling to stand unremarked, uncriticised and unmolested.

    Now one hig I dare pride myself on is that I have NEVER indulged in ANY such behavior at PE. I state my disagreements politely and with dignity.

    Miss Shaw is, apparently, blind to the faults displayed in the odious behavior of her constituents.

    One doesn't have to use vulgarity to be vicious you know.

    At any rate, I have withdrawn most of my recent comments from PE, and will not attempt to post there again.

    We MUST learn to disagree without becoming rebarbative. If we don't, we will lose our Civilization sooner than most could inagine.

  18. The term “useful idiot” is thought to have been coined by communist mass murderer Vladimir Lenin. It describes naive communist sympathizers in the West (liberals). While Lenin and the Soviets held these stupid liberals in utter contempt, they also saw them as useful tools for dispensing propaganda.

    You will often find useful idiots (aka libtards- Progressives, and all the other names that they chose to use) lounging about in a Starbucks with friends, discussing the shortcomings of America over a frappuccino. Useful idiots are a mix of urban hipsters, brainwashed college kids, busy bodies, self righteous do-gooders, silver pony-tailed hippies, (now college professors), quirky wannabe-intellectuals, hysterical females, girly-men, and Michael Moore devotees.

    I've had years of listening to liberals and occasionally facing off with them (I'm basically libertarian). And it's a total waste of time in terms of trying to persuade them of anything. The only purpose of arguing with them is to expose their nonsense to any intelligent observers who may be present. But nothing you or I can say will get through to the liberals. I've never seen it happen.
    To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people's ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being "open-minded" as agreeing with them
    Useful Idiot Libtards aren't necessarily bad people, and in many cases, are exceptionally warm and kind hearted. Many have high IQ's and hold advanced degrees. They can hold files full of factoids in their brains, but lack the capacity to weave them together to find a coherent pattern. Though they fancy themselves as "free thinkers", they are actually the most authority worshipping (politically correct) and servile creatures you will ever meet. When it comes to independent critical thought, they are astonishingly stupid .....and very dangerous! To paraphrase the late great Senator Joseph McCarthy, libtards are "the unwitting hand maidens of the Communists."
    And one more thing, last but certainly not least.. Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it's chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is "hatred." None are so blind than those who will not see.

  19. "FreeThinke", for all your intellectual and cultural superiority your complete lacj of self awareness is astounding. It is only exceeded by your rampant hypocrisy.

    That being said, I have scrubbed all comments from your front page as of 11:10 AM 9/11/14 made by me. This of course in in response to your recent comment(s). Rest assured I shall hence forth refrain from commenting on your site.

    I wish you well, as well as continued success in your blogging activities.

    Whether you chose to allow this post comment to stand or not is of no concern to me. It is enough that you FreeThinke have read it. It WILL be my last here.

    Be well...

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    3. A. FT lover, and Shaw haterSeptember 12, 2014 at 6:45 AM

      Eat Shit!

  20. The discussion was SUPPOSED to be about the relative merits of President Reagan's economic policies as opposed to those of President Obama.

    You can see how many followed that lead after the incursions of one spiteful, determined troll.

    Of course it's EVERYONES fault for allowing this to happen.

    And please let me remind everyone once again that BOILERPLATE is not welcome here.

    I'd rather have two or three intelligent, well-meaning responses that stay in topic than tons of cut-and-paste garbage.

    Insulting ANYONE -- or denigrating anyone ELSE'S blog -- is FORBIDDEN here.

    If you want to indulge in unfettered Freedom of Expression -- no matter how moronic or distasteful -- DO IT ON YOUR OWN BLOG.

  21. Earlier this week the Messiah didńt even have a strategy, and now he’s sending Aircraft to Syria to Bomb them? These are the same Moonbats who want Bush and Cheney indicted for war crimes and think obama is doing a great job. I see their comments over at some of the progressive blogs and I have to shake my head and pinch myself to make sure that I’m not dreaming.

  22. Just saying what's true.September 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  24. What it comes down to is this: We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind, let alone the United States. And if we lose that war, in so, we lose this way of life, the freedoms that we have known and enjoyed, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent it from happening. " Ronald Reagan”

    President Reagan so eloquently finished off his speech and said, "We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope [America] of man on earth, or we"ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

    What will we do? Once again, it is a time for choosing. We must fight or die!

    So call them ISIS, or ISIL I call them a bunch of ANIMALS that must be treated as if they we Rabid Animals, and what do we do with Rabid Animals? We put them to death.
    Rabid Animals can not live with other animals.

  25. It was 13 years ago today that the worst terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil happened. September 11, 2001. For Americans around the country, it was a regular day, just like any other day, but for almost 3,000 others and their families it wasn’t.
    As we all know so well, Liberal hypocrites never see a tragedy they won’t exploit and politicize.. I’m not holding my breath until any such "Select Committee" on Benghazi and gets to the bottom of anything, unless Her Thighness sees the light and tells the truth, but of course that will NEVER happen. .Hillary and the other murderous Commies involved must pay for this crime. . her phony righteous indignation of the attack by a bunch of terrorists is obviously playing politics with the deaths of those innocent people

  26. All right, we'll pursue the matterof contrasting the merits of Reagan and Obama's economic policies soon again, and maybe we could actually have THAT debate a THAT time.

    Hope never dies here at FreeThinke's blog. ;-)

  27. FreeThinke: Reading your comment to RN, I can see that free thinking is not so welcome here.

    I've read many of Les/RN's comments. I've never seen him be a "troll". Does he blow his stack sometimes, or say nutty things on occasion? Of course. Don't we all. But these times are aberrations, which distinguishes him from a "Troll" who is like that all the time.


    "The only thing seriously wrong with Sarah Palin beside her hairdo"

    She is also a failure. Her top achievement on her resume is being mayor of a small town no one has heard of other than in association with her. She can't count governorship on her resume: she blew that one by running away from it. A quitter.



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.