quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I think the comparisons are misleading. The economy under Reagan had fundamentally different structure. Globalism, outsourcing and off-shoring took seriously off during 1990-s and it has since cost millions of US jobs. The process continues uninterrupted (record trade deficits show it). Obama policies have done nothing to change the structure of the economy. Reagan policies were very potent in this regard. We also know the people leaving labor force are not factored in the graph. Obama jobs graph is essentially flat if to do honest accounting [ http://www.shadowstats.com/ , Reagan and Obama graphs are not directly comparable as the unemployed counting methodology was different under Reagan ].
The second graph is totally misleading as well. The government spending as a % of GDP is baloney (considering how the GDP is calculated). Take for example the government spending vs. tax revenue if looking at the budget health. How much deficit you want? For economy under Obama there has been totally unprecedented flush of cheap money into the market (the Federal Reserve and the Government combined). The GDP numbers and stock market indexes reflect it.  This kind of policies were unthinkable during 1980-s.
I think the picture has very little to do with GOP sabotaging Obama plans (essentially, spending out of debt). It has more to do with wrong ideology and "the medicine" not working.

quote:

Serial GOP filibusters limited the extent to which he could use deficit spending and temporary tax cuts to hasten economic recovery. Republicans bucked historically bipartisan policies to thwart the president. And when they took over the House in 2011, Republicans pursued an austerity agenda, and, separately, spooked credit markets by taking the government to the brink of default. All of these factors, combined with contraction at the state and local levels, offset the stimulative policies Obama secured at the beginning of his term. And that prefigured a significantly slower labor market recovery than Reagan enjoyed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, all that shows is a total lack of understanding for the economy.

Who passed  tax cuts for the wealthy?
Who passed the gluttonous and unsupportable military spending bills?
Who is legislating us the largest deficit in our nations history?

We are laden with debt and no viable spending plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/how-politics-damaged-obamas-recovery-chart.php?ref=fpb

Last week we brought you this chart, demonstrating that the unemployment rate under President Obama is coming down fairly quickly — though not as quickly as it did under President Reagan in the months before he won a landslide re-election in 1984.



Here’s a major reason why.

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrates a key difference between Reagan’s first term and Obama’s: the pliancy of the Congresses they had to work with. Despite the fact that it was controlled by Democrats, Reagan’s Congress was ultimately accommodative, and the result was significant fiscal expansion, which likely helped bring down the unemployment rate.



Despite presiding over a Democratic Congress, Obama enjoyed no such co-operation. Serial GOP filibusters limited the extent to which he could use deficit spending and temporary tax cuts to hasten economic recovery. Republicans bucked historically bipartisan policies to thwart the president. And when they took over the House in 2011, Republicans pursued an austerity agenda, and, separately, spooked credit markets by taking the government to the brink of default. All of these factors, combined with contraction at the state and local levels, offset the stimulative policies Obama secured at the beginning of his term. And that prefigured a significantly slower labor market recovery than Reagan enjoyed.

That’s not purely a function of GOP obstructionism. Obama and Reagan pursued different policies, and Reagan’s were politically more difficult for Congress to thwart. But today’s GOP, unlike yesterday’s Democratic Party, pursued a purposeful and unprecedented strategy of blanket obstruction designed to damage the president. And these are the results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/how-politics-damaged-obamas-recovery-chart.php?ref=fpb

Last week we brought you this chart, demonstrating that the unemployment rate under President Obama is coming down fairly quickly — though not as quickly as it did under President Reagan in the months before he won a landslide re-election in 1984.



Here’s a major reason why.

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrates a key difference between Reagan’s first term and Obama’s: the pliancy of the Congresses they had to work with. Despite the fact that it was controlled by Democrats, Reagan’s Congress was ultimately accommodative, and the result was significant fiscal expansion, which likely helped bring down the unemployment rate.



Despite presiding over a Democratic Congress, Obama enjoyed no such co-operation. Serial GOP filibusters limited the extent to which he could use deficit spending and temporary tax cuts to hasten economic recovery. Republicans bucked historically bipartisan policies to thwart the president. And when they took over the House in 2011, Republicans pursued an austerity agenda, and, separately, spooked credit markets by taking the government to the brink of default. All of these factors, combined with contraction at the state and local levels, offset the stimulative policies Obama secured at the beginning of his term. And that prefigured a significantly slower labor market recovery than Reagan enjoyed.

That’s not purely a function of GOP obstructionism. Obama and Reagan pursued different policies, and Reagan’s were politically more difficult for Congress to thwart. But today’s GOP, unlike yesterday’s Democratic Party, pursued a purposeful and unprecedented strategy of blanket obstruction designed to damage the president. And these are the results.

I'm pretty sure if the Republicans had this ability to be so obstructive they would have halted Obamacare in the two years Obama had control of both houses of Congress. This situation made the GOP powerless. Completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOLOLOLOL.  they couldnt pour piss out of a boot.  They tried, they are ineffectual at that type of legislation, so they got it to court to give that a shot.

They can however borrow and spend.   

quote:

and the proof is in their inability to balance a budget, cease their horrific borrowing and spending or to legislate effectively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Then on the 20th, the world again sees a strong and determined American (GOP President) leading the land of the Free and the Home of the Supreme Court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, thats gonna be a real pisscutter there chief, since those money issues must be legislated in the currently republican controlled house (its in your paper, your little cliff notes that have been hanging out since the late 1780os).  And since the speaker, majority leader and all commitees are managed by teabaggers and neo-cons, I think you have misspelt something. 

quote:

as some on the left will get even more unstable and some have actual power in the Government and can still do much damage

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, thats gonna be a real pisscutter there chief, since those money issues must be legislated in the currently republican controlled house (its in your paper, your little cliff notes that have been hanging out since the late 1780os).  And since the speaker, majority leader and all commitees are managed by teabaggers and neo-cons, I think you have misspelt something. 

Lets apply this logic equally. During the last 2 years of Bush and the first 2 years of the Obummer administration, both the Congress and the Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party. By your own logic, we can then blame the Democratic Party directly for the recession, the contined QE failures, the housing bubble, and everything else that the Failure in Chief inherited from his own party, but continues to blame on the Bush administration.

-SD-