From the link below:
But now that we’ve crunched those numbers, I think it’s necessary to point out how ridiculous it is to compare Reagan and Obama’s presidencies in the first place. The first and most important factor that makes this comparison ridiculous is the drastically changing jobs environment- specifically, the disappearance of a vast majority of the U.S. manufacturing sector. To put it more simply, about half of the manufacturing jobs that were available to unskilled workers (ie. those without a college degree) when Reagan became president had disappeared by the time Obama took office, most of them outsourced or replaced by machines and computers.
Here's an excellent analysis of what those comparisons are and why it is not helpful to keep making them:
Is Obama’s Economy Really Better Than Reagan’s? A Closer Look
(BTW, the stock market HAS done much better under "sochalist" President Obama than it did under President Reagan. But don't upset the you-know-who-folks with that fact. Presidents don't really have control over the stock market, but sometimes its growth is an indication of the confidence investors have -- sometimes.)
9 comments:
shaw, who cares about reagan and obama when the assistant manager your broonz sent our way have us undefeated!
all those numbers about the economy are fine and dandy but let's remember the real reason behind the numbers is the unprecedented amount of liquidity that obama has been able to inject into the system without causing inflation. and that's due to globalization and the stranglehold business has over labor.
the rich have done a lot better under obama's economic revival than the poor. but having said all that, i don't the republicans could have done a better job.
Both Reagan and Obama took over bad economy's. They share a similar trait in that the economy was brought down by the ineptness of a democrat controlled congress.
Reagan took steps to stimulate growth in the middle class, Obama has taken the action of government is the answer. There is no argument that under obama the people with money to invest are very happy.
Instead of believing in a free market we now have total government control of interest rates, unrealistic banking regulations, blame everyone and take no responsibility.
As we are aware this is only helping the wealthy and the upper 1%.
US oil and gas production is way up. So much so, that the traditional oil producers are going into recession. But it is good for US consumers, and if it continues, we may see the effect of 'trickle up' on the economy as
we spend on more and other commodities.
The right's entire agenda is about hate. That's what their motivation is about, as even they conceded, and it's the motivating force behind everything these jackasses try to do.
Up to and including their insane Ebola reaction. Because it would be fair and not racist to let anyone from the entire continent of Africa into the U.S.! Did they flunk geography. What does South Africa have to do with Ebola?
We are One World and we all have a stake in Africa's health; it's our responsibility to deal rationally with the calamity, and if we won't make a priority of finding a cure for Ebola, then we've failed!
Don't the wingnuts have anything better to do than to run around like chikens without heads screaming EBOLA's gonna kill us all? Shouldn't they be pulling wings off of flies or punching kitties? Y'know, their normal pass time?
Sorry TAO, I inadvertently deleted your comment this AM.
"...BTW, the stock market HAS done much better under "sochalist" President Obama than it did under President Reagan..."
Then as now, I think there are more important indicators of our economic well being.
------------------
Lefty said: "The right's entire agenda is about hate."
Not much different from the Left, really.
"Because it would be fair and not racist to let anyone from the entire continent of Africa into the U.S.! Did they flunk geography."
Perhaps you are showing a different type of racism with your generalization of all Africa as being black.
------------------
About what Bill said. Shaw, what IS the preferred way to pronounce "Bruins" ?
dmarks, here in Boston, we call our hockey team the "BROONZ," and we call our arch rivals, the Montreal Canadiens, "The Habs."*
"Habs" is an abbreviation of "les habitants," the informal name given to the original settlers of New France, dating back to the 17th Century. So it's a natural fit for the The Montreal Canadiens, established in 1909 and marketed as a French-Canadian hockey team.
Having said that, the nickname might have been the result of an error. According to NHL.com, the first man to refer to the team as "the Habs" was Tex Rickard, owner of Madison Square Garden, in 1924. Rickard apparently told a reporter that the "H" on the Canadiens' sweaters was for "Habitants." Not true. The distinctive C-wrapped-around-H logo stands for "Club de Hockey Canadien."
Shaw said: "dmarks, here in Boston, we call our hockey team the "BROONZ," and we call our arch rivals, the Montreal Canadiens, "The Habs."*"
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the off topic.
We have a local radio host, here in Red Wings country, who mangles a lot of words (he can't pronounce "Roosevelt" correctly to save his life). And he calls the Bruins the "Broonz". I wasn't sure if it was him saying it wrong on purpose, him insulting the Bruins, him saying it as Boston fans say it, or him just being ignorant. Now I know :)
I know well the "Habs" nickname, commonly used all over the country.
Post a Comment