Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 5:49 PM GMT
    One of Reagan's legacies is how he was able to increase the labor force participation rate - thus making Americans more productive and participating in society and fueling massive economic growth in the decades that followed.

    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Four-Years-of-Obama-Undoes-Eight-Years-of-Reagan

    Labor-Force-Rate_lightbox.jpg

    Wow this graph really says it all.

    The Labor Force Participation Rate shows what percentage of people are working, looking for a job and not looking for a job. It is a better yardstick to measure the workforce in America than is the usually cited "unemployment rate" which doesn't count people who are so frustrated they stopped looking for a job.

    The graph shows a huge upswing in labor participation through the Reagan years. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush kept the numbers up in Reagan territory. Since Obama has taken over, he has wiped out the entirety of the Reagan gains.

    Hat tip to www.ZeroHedge.com for the graph.

    They also have an excellent piece on why the unemployment rate right now is really 11.6%, not the 8.1% the administration is claiming.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
    Yep, try again

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2347751
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
    It is still higher than it was under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, neither of whom inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiUKkWBPphx6pZjcZ0TPv
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 6:47 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt is still higher than it was under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, neither of whom inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiUKkWBPphx6pZjcZ0TPv


    Well, many women didn't work out side the family home back in those days. Take it back a couple of decades further. I'd be interested in the results.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 7:01 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt is still higher than it was under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, neither of whom inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiUKkWBPphx6pZjcZ0TPv


    Well, many women didn't work out side the family home back in those days. Take it back a couple of decades further. I'd be interested in the results.


    Well, there was not as much automation back then either.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    inc_prod21.png
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWhCr1FgzDSx0z4-oLStd
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 7:56 PM GMT
    chart.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 7:58 PM GMT
    tumblr_lt9x0yygvH1qcc8ul.png
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:00 PM GMT
    unionmembershipratesweb-01.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:02 PM GMT
    1130-inequality-chart_full_600.jpg
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    State_of_the_Dream_2011-Figure_3.png
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    cnn-trap-income.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:09 PM GMT
    Now WHAT was it that you were you sayin Rid? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 8:41 PM GMT
    GQjock saidNow WHAT was it that you were you sayin Rid? icon_confused.gif


    I was saying that the labor participation rate has declined since Obama has entered office. It's also useful to note that many of the trends you've described have not only not stopped but gotten faster under the Obama Administration - so what were you saying?

    Though if one were critically minded, one would point out a few issues with your stats:



    Productivity growth has increased and the poor(er) have participated in these gains. Those who have higher incomes have participated more greatly - but this can also be as much attributed to technology.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    But Rid ....
    Be it as it May

    whether it was because of Technology or Gremlins ... the Middle Classes and the Poor's incomes have stagnated since the days of Ronnie


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 8:52 PM GMT
    GQjock saidBut Rid ....
    Be it as it May

    whether it was because of Technology or Gremlins ... the Middle Classes and the Poor's incomes have stagnated since the days of Ronnie




    Expect those numbers to get worse as we look back in the days of Obama given that the US has gotten poorer as a nation under Obama - likely in no small part because fewer people work and fewer people try to work (as of last September).

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/14/obamas-poverty-problem/

    America is a poorer country under President Obama. Since last year, the ranks of America’s least well off grew by 2.5 million, according to the government definition of poverty, which includes a family with income of less than $22,314 a year or an individual making less than $11,139. One-sixth of the country, 46.2 million, met this standard, according to figures released Tuesday. That’s the highest total since the Census Bureau began keeping track a half-century ago.

    The blame lies squarely on Mr. Obama’s policies, which have strangled the productive sector. The economy is moving, but barely so. Gross domestic product edged forward at a dismal 1 percent rate in the second quarter. Financial experts have been busy revising forecasts downward, with the National Association of Business Economists expecting the year to end with growth totaling a lackluster 1.5 percent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 9:18 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]riddler78 said[/cite]
    GQjock saidNow WHAT was it that you were you sayin Rid? icon_confused.gif


    I was saying that the labor participation rate has declined since Obama has entered office. It's also useful to note that many of the trends you've described have not only not stopped but gotten faster under the Obama Administration - so what were you saying?

    Though if one were critically minded, one would point out a few issues with your stats:



    Productivity growth has increased and the poor(er) have participated in these gains. Those who have higher incomes have participated more greatly - but this can also be as much attributed to technology.[/quote
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Riddler, you know as a person I like you, but your trying to show something that isn't there, Reagan did we the great majority of US Citizens no favors, none at all, His policies were not the basis for the boom of the 90's, We cannot even give Clinton all the credit for that. It was a tech. boom and it came as a result of progressives and even conservatives seeing the opportunities and producing compromises and bipartisan legislation that open the doors for the economy to flourish. That took cooperation between the dems and the repubs, and that is something that had we had it since Obama came into office we would have seen our country much closer to an end to this recession with many workers going back to work.

    I grew up, went to college and got into the working world and the 'business' of living during this time that you propose to tell us about, and NO !!! Reagan if anything was the start of the downfall of the American Middle Class being able to provide well for their families on one salary. GONE ARE THOSE DAYS, and not by any stretch is this a problem of Obama's making. The Bush years took us the rest of the way to the Bottom, and since Obama, the intransigent Repubs have made it their primary goal to get rid of Obama, not improve things for our Citizens.

    Riddler, you can quote all the talking points and graphs you can find from the far right that they put together to make black white and the wrong right, but the fact is, reality for most Americans is not what they would have you believe.

    Fact of the matter most Americans, even the rich were much better off when the taxes were greater at Clintons rates and the Unions were still strong enough that Middle America still had living wages. Now we have a few with a lot, just like during the great depression and very little money circulating among the masses thereby choking the economy from producing orders for goods and services.

    You should have lived back in the 50's 60's and early 70's then you too would see a vast difference and its not for the better since Reagan started his Trickle down bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2012 9:58 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    GQjock saidBut Rid ....
    Be it as it May

    whether it was because of Technology or Gremlins ... the Middle Classes and the Poor's incomes have stagnated since the days of Ronnie




    Expect those numbers to get worse as we look back in the days of Obama given that the US has gotten poorer as a nation under Obama - likely in no small part because fewer people work and fewer people try to work (as of last September).

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/14/obamas-poverty-problem/

    America is a poorer country under President Obama. Since last year, the ranks of America’s least well off grew by 2.5 million, according to the government definition of poverty, which includes a family with income of less than $22,314 a year or an individual making less than $11,139. One-sixth of the country, 46.2 million, met this standard, according to figures released Tuesday. That’s the highest total since the Census Bureau began keeping track a half-century ago.

    The blame lies squarely on Mr. Obama’s policies, which have strangled the productive sector. The economy is moving, but barely so. Gross domestic product edged forward at a dismal 1 percent rate in the second quarter. Financial experts have been busy revising forecasts downward, with the National Association of Business Economists expecting the year to end with growth totaling a lackluster 1.5 percent.


    Please don't quote the Washington Times. It's not fit to line a bird's cage.

    Here's the real story:

    Ezra KleinThe percentage of Americans in the labor force has been declining for more than a decade. In January 2000, 67.3 percent of Americans had a job or were actively seeking work. By 2007, just before the recession, that had fallen to 66 percent. In January 2009, the month Obama assumed the presidency, it was 65.7 percent. Since then, it has fallen to 63.6 percent, a level not seen since the first year of the Reagan administration.

    a number of economists are arguing that the recession is distracting people from the real story — long-run demographic trends that have nothing to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

    Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

    But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring.
    Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

    In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


    Barclays is hardly a bunch of radical socialists, so...
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 07, 2012 12:08 AM GMT
    RLD is absolutely correct Rid
    You need to listen to what he says

    I grew up, went to college and got into the working world and the 'business' of living during this time that you propose to tell us about, and NO !!! Reagan if anything was the start of the downfall of the American Middle Class being able to provide well for their families on one salary. GONE ARE THOSE DAYS, and not by any stretch is this a problem of Obama's making. The Bush years took us the rest of the way to the Bottom, and since Obama, the intransigent Repubs have made it their primary goal to get rid of Obama, not improve things for our Citizens.

    Riddler, you can quote all the talking points and graphs you can find from the far right that they put together to make black white and the wrong right, but the fact is, reality for most Americans is not what they would have you believe.


    The fact IS is that the middle class has been squeezed by the top 1 percent and they have no more to give them
    Back before Ronnie a family could make it on usually a father's salary alone
    then during the 80's that went away
    and the average family had to have two salaries instead of one just to keep afloat
    THEN ... even more money was needed just to keep the same lifestyle and that same Family had to borrow on their credit just to stay afloat ... fueling the bubble that burst under George W Bush

    The truth is right there right in front of you
    You wanna believe in republican fairytales ? Go right ahead
    But that's all they are fairytales
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2012 5:42 AM GMT
    Ronald Reagan never should have been president. The fact you believe he stands as a beacon in American times shows just how misled you are. End of story.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2012 8:12 AM GMT
    in_transit saidRonald Reagan never should have been president. The fact you believe he stands as a beacon in American times shows just how misled you are. End of story.


    So you remember Reagan well, do you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2012 8:43 AM GMT
    in_transit saidRonald Reagan never should have been president. The fact you believe he stands as a beacon in American times shows just how misled you are. End of story.



    The best thing that could happen to America this year would be if President Reagan could come back, and fix things; just as Oz is in need of John Howard.