From CNN:
When Ronald Reagan took over, the unemployment rate was just over 7 percent. When Bill Clinton took over, the unemployment rate was just over 7 percent. What's the unemployment rate now, when Barack Obama's about to take over? Just over 7 percent.
I wonder how each president faired in his claim to be able to turn the economy around?
During Reagan's first two years, the economy got a lot worse -- double-digit unemployment by the end of 1982, at the time of the midterm election.
Reagan tried to limit the damage, telling voters to "stay the course." His party lost 26 House seats but no Senate seats in the congressional elections.
It was a warning. The voters were getting impatient. Things got better during the next two years. Unemployment fell to where it was when Reagan took office. But inflation, which was a huge problem in those days, was cut by two-thirds.
Republicans said it was "Morning in America." Reagan was easily re-elected.
During Clinton's first two years, the economy improved. Unemployment went down. But the voters still turned against the Democrats in the 1994 midterms and threw them out of power in Congress.
What were they angry about? Clinton's health-care plan. Tax hikes. The issue of gays in the military. The assault weapons ban. The economy, not so much. But unemployment continued to go down and after four years, the economic turnaround paid off. Clinton was easily re-elected.
So, what were people angry about? A health care plan killed by Republicans that will still need. Tax hikes that were necessary and lead to unmatched economic expansion and deficit reduction-->eventually a surplus. And expanding rights for gays. My favorite is the last one because the hippies hate Clinton for it. It's nice that inflation went down under Reagan while he was not creating jobs, building a record deficit and destroying the American worker forever. But, you know, shit cost less.
3 comments:
...and destroying the American worker forever.
How do you square that the American worker was destroyed forever and Clinton's Benevolent Reign of Perfection occurred after that?
I mean, if Clinton failed to restore the permanently destroyed American worker, how could you say his presidency was a success?
1. Because I'm a partisan hack.
2. Clinton did the best he could, but with the unions so damaged by Reagan, there was little hope for the American worker. Wages stagnated, consumerism (driven by evil corporations) thus had to be funded with credit, which lead to the current economic disaster. True, Clinton's progressive tax policy was a demonstrable success based on the number of jobs created, but he could not permanently reverse the exploitation of the American work--the true theme of the Republican party for the last 30 years--and so he was only great for limiting the decline.
He was just a messenger. One greater is to follow.
This doesn't imply any opinion, but Jim's last line there is damn funny.
Post a Comment