"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
Love revisionist history especially from someone who probably wasn't old enough to understand what it was like to buy a home at 17% interest rates and have a misery index of over 20. The recession reported by NBER was July 1981 to November 1982 and was the result of the Carter economic policy so you stand corrected again. Reagan implemented a pro growth economic policy by implementing a 10-10-5% tax cut over three years and that began the strongest economic growth this country had ever seen in a post war era. His economy created 18 million jobs, doubled govt. Federal Income Tax revenue, doubled the GDP, and stimulated entreprenueral spirit that rewarded risk taking.SouthernDemocrat;1059635181]Let me see if I have the rabid right winger economic history down here.
In the late 70s, the Carter economy sucked. The great Republican Messiah Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, he instituted his tax cuts, the country went into a deep recession in 1982-83. That however was all Carter's fault. The economy then entered into a period of expansion, lasting through the end of the Reagan Administration.
GHW Bush showed what happens when you compromise with a liberal. He raised taxes in an agreement with the Democrat Congress to cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increase and we know how that turned out. We got the tax increases but no spending cutsThen Bush Sr. took office, the economy grew for a while then went into a recession because Bush raised taxes in order to curb the huge deficits he inherited from the Democratic congress that made Reagan spend so much money.
Revisionist history. Bill Clinton took office with a growing economy and almost killed it. His economic plan was so good that the Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections. The Republicans got Clinton to sign 60% of the Contract with America and cut his budgets. Clinton benefited from the dot.com boom but didn't create 22 million jobsThen in 1993, Bill Clinton took office. He and the Democratic congress raised taxes again, all the Republicans predicted it would cause a huge recession, instead the economy grew, median income went up every year, the poverty rate went down every year, and 22 million new jobs were created and thus outperformed the Reagan economy by every measure.
He took office with 119.1 million people employed and left it with 137.7 million Employed or 18.6 million according to BLS so you stand corrected again
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
Again you stand corrected as there never was a budget surplus. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion. If he had a surplus the debt would have gone down but every year the debt went up. Not sure where you get your information but it is wrong.However, that was all due to Reagan. You see even though he was senile, as the Republican Messiah, he was still able to bring about prosperity for the country despite his dementia. Any other credit for the economic expansion resulted from the Republican congress elected in 1994. When Bill Clinton left office we had the largest budget surplus in our history. That had nothing to do with Bill Clinton though, it was all because of senile retired Reagan, and the Republican congress.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Yes, we went into recession March 2001, less than two months after Bush took office, a recession that was compounded by 9/11 a few months later. How did Bush have anything to do with the recession although obviously he was responsible for the economy day one whereas Obama still isn't responsible for the economy 2 1/2 years later.In 2001 the dot com bubble had burst, and we went back into a recession. The recession was all Bill Clinton's fault, and Carter probably had something to do with it as well, this of course is despite the fact that we still had the same Republican congress in office. That same year we were also attacked on 9/11, which was not Bush's fault at all, but rather was Bill Clinton's fault as well as liberals in general, gays, environmentalists, feminists, and all non-evangelical Christians.
Interesting how there is a distinct difference in employment with GOP Control of Congress and Democrat control of Congress but again that fact escapes you. Democrats controlled the Senate from 2001-2002, Republicans controlled Congress between 2003-2006, and Democrats controlled Congress 2007-2008. Let's see if you can tell when Republicans controlled Congress.Luckily Bush had a round of tax cuts, then another in 2003, and got us involved in 2 wars. However, the economy was growing again, and some jobs were being created, so the Republicans of course were singing his praise, praising financial deregulation, talking up Bush's vision for an "ownership society" where nearly everyone owned a home, and even talking about how it might be a great idea to take the current Social Security and Medicare surpluses and invest them in mortgage securities as they would be a very safe investment and offer a much better return (I actually heard a Heritage Institute economist push that very idea on NPR back in 2005). Bush was great until the economy tanked, but that was all Obama's fault, even though he had yet to take office (presumably, businesses all over the world were so afraid of the prospect of Bush being out of office they practically ceased all economic activity).
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334
Regarding the housing bubble, find out who Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines were and get back to me. Then tell me about Barney Franks and Chris Dodd's involvement in the home ownership program since you want to blame it all on Bush
Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or over 20 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index.Once Obama took office in January, 2009, everything bad that had happened in the last 10 years suddenly became his fault.
No, I don't think you do. Stop paying attention to leftwing sites, use bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites for non partisan and actual data.I think I got it now.
Its important to recognize that if there wasnt significant finagling with the labor participation rates (ie - keeping participation rates at historical norms), then the unemployment rate would be well north of 11%.
What is so mind boggling is that people even remotely consider this a recovery. What recovery in the past fifty years was quatitative easing used? What recovery was ZIRP in place fo over two years? What recovery had unemployment this high and with no end in sight? What recovery had consumers in so much debt? What recovery happened with no corporations hiring and afraid to hire? What recovery happened where proper accounting rules were thrown out the window? What recovery was there where housing was contracting like it is still? I mean this is as obvious as the sun rises that governments are dealing with a global depression becuase of debt. It won't be solved until the debt is purged.
People accustomed to an easy life expect it to continue, especially given the unrealistic expectations raised by politicians who will only say what the poor buggers who vote for them want to hear..