Obama's term looks to be a one time disaster worse than Carter even.

[printer2]

Obama beats anyone, he triples debt and spending.... What is the point of digging up Reagan?

Not sure if you have noticed it, but the title of this thread is 'Obama's term looks to be a one time disaster worse than Carter even.'

So if you are comparing one president with others I would think you would have to include all the others in between otherwise the statement has no validity.

Also 'facts' or lack of them were being bandied around so I thought some real numbers that compare the terms of the presidents in the time in question would be appropriate.

Now there is some spill over from one president's term to another as policies put in place do not turn on a dime when a new guy gets in. To do a good comparison would take a great deal of work tracking the policies after a president leaves office and the effect that he leaves.

But while someone is in office people generally take the president situation and attribute it to the incumbent.


The numbers come as a surprise to me as Reagan was said to have given the economy a big boost. Well the increase in GDP does not show this. Looking at these numbers, as incomplete as they are, each president's term has strengths and weaknesses.

Stacked up against each other in this way it seems one is not really better than the other. Actually Clinton seems like the winner to me. Wonder what he really could have achieved if he could keep his whistle clean.

[crackertech]

Wonder what he really could have achieved if he could keep his whistle clean

. I thought Monica cleaned his whistle.

[pageyjim]

Good points printer2 but the premise of the thread is ridiculous. And by expanding the subject it seems we have had a more fair and even (somewhat) exchange of ideas.

[frostman]

Nothing changes on this site I see. Still the same group of right wing nut jobs complaining about Obama, while, I presume, supporting even nuttier tea party candidates. Where is unemployment still so high? There's a handful of states where it's high that's keeping the rate up. In a lot of places it has fallen. Almost all of the people I know who lost their jobs are back to work. Most at the same job. As for Obama being a one term president, I think Obamas re-election chances will be greatly helped if the Republicans take back the house in November. If that happens it wont take the American people 3 months to realize it was a mistake putting the GOP back in charge, and Obamas numbers will go right back up. Obama isn't the greatest, but he sure beats any Republican out there, especially the ones in congress. You right wingers complain and complain, but i've yet to hear one thing from the right about how they would actually fix this mess. Putting people like Rand Paul in the senate is only gonna make the situation worse. Thankfully the American people are starting to reject the Tea Baggers, so I guess all hope isn't lost yet.

[pdrake65]

Actually Clinton seems like the winner to me. Wonder what he really could have achieved if he could keep his whistle clean.

Clinton's numbers came under a Republican ruled congress.Not very often can a President take sole responsibility for policies. This is not the case for BO . HE says and Congress does for the most part.

[Tool-Slinger]

Not sure if you have noticed it, but the title of this thread is 'Obama's term looks to be a one time disaster worse than Carter even.'

So if you are comparing one president with others I would think you would have to include all the others in between otherwise the statement has no validity.

Also 'facts' or lack of them were being bandied around so I thought some real numbers that compare the terms of the presidents in the time in question would be appropriate.

Now there is some spill over from one president's term to another as policies put in place do not turn on a dime when a new guy gets in. To do a good comparison would take a great deal of work tracking the policies after a president leaves office and the effect that he leaves.

But while someone is in office people generally take the president situation and attribute it to the incumbent.


The numbers come as a surprise to me as Reagan was said to have given the economy a big boost. Well the increase in GDP does not show this. Looking at these numbers, as incomplete as they are, each president's term has strengths and weaknesses.

Stacked up against each other in this way it seems one is not really better than the other. Actually Clinton seems like the winner to me. Wonder what he really could have achieved if he could keep his whistle clean.

Carter trashed the economy. He probably had some problems going in, but he trashed it. Historic biblical proportions, Carter was a disaster. Reagan turned the economy around, but he spent like crazy, at the time we were a tad worried about the soviet threat.... No more soviets. That spending was justified. Here comes Bush1, there he goes, nobody misses him. Then enters Clinton who TRIED to spend us into he11 but was beaten by the Republican revolution. Remember Hillary-Care? The numbers were good though, on the economy. But he passed off war to Bush2. Iraq and Al-Queda made multiple acts of war upon the USA and he just let it go. Bush2 dealt with it, of course it costed some bucks. Obama cannot fix that, he has to continue the route of history. But Obama decided to triple our domestic economic problems. Wild spending, sorry excuses.

[pageyjim]

printer2,
You know what's funny, or sad depending on your perspective. I'm speculating but I'll bet in Canada you are are a moderate-somewhat conservative. But here in the US you would be tagged as a marxist. I bet for laughs up there you break out ARP.

[Tool-Slinger]

Nothing changes on this site I see. Still the same group of right wing nut jobs complaining about Obama, while, I presume, supporting even nuttier tea party candidates. Where is unemployment still so high? There's a handful of states where it's high that's keeping the rate up. In a lot of places it has fallen. Almost all of the people I know who lost their jobs are back to work. Most at the same job. As for Obama being a one term president, I think Obamas re-election chances will be greatly helped if the Republicans take back the house in November. If that happens it wont take the American people 3 months to realize it was a mistake putting the GOP back in charge, and Obamas numbers will go right back up. Obama isn't the greatest, but he sure beats any Republican out there, especially the ones in congress. You right wingers complain and complain, but i've yet to hear one thing from the right about how they would actually fix this mess. Putting people like Rand Paul in the senate is only gonna make the situation worse. Thankfully the American people are starting to reject the Tea Baggers, so I guess all hope isn't lost yet.

Obama offered to fix everything along with his demorat majorities. FAILURE!

[Tool-Slinger]

printer2,
You know what's funny, or sad depending on your perspective. I'm speculating but I'll bet in Canada you are are a moderate-somewhat conservative. But here in the US you would be tagged as a marxist. I bet for laughs up there you break out ARP.

Actually, in Canada they beat seals with clubs for laughs. It may be strange, but it gets really cold up there and there is not much to do.

[pageyjim]

Actually, in Canada they beat seals with clubs for laughs. It may be strange, but it gets really cold up there and there is not much to do.

lol

[whec720]

I have to say ty a decent post with no name calling. All above may be true(I didn't check 14 yr quote but let's assume, since his post was civil, ty again lol) It is also true that he came in with 7.1% unemployment it went up and it was brought down to 5.3% after 8 years. It averaged 7.5% for his presidency. Also true that the 16 million jobs created just kept pace with population growth.
I did not call Reagan a buffoon, it is also true that Jimmy Carter is not a buffoon. There are a few factors when discussing economic conditions under these 2 presidents. Carter was hurt by the Fed. being tight and Reagan prospered some by the Fed loosening constraints. Which is out of the presidents control. Also Reagan was able to be the first big defecit spender without having to pay a lot of interest on that debt.

You are kinda missing my point. Deficit spending or not, a President survives into his second term if he is able to keep the unemployment numbers low. Or if they are high when he begins his first term, he has to see to it that they come down. If he doesn't do that, he is done....PERIOD. No second term, no passing go, no collecting 200 dollars.

That is why Carter bit the dust and Reagan rode off in the sunset.

Basically, Americans do not understand economics, be them micro or macro. They do understand the importance of earning a living and having money in their pocket though. Presidents live and die by this simple fact.

[printer2]

printer2,
You know what's funny, or sad depending on your perspective. I'm speculating but I'll bet in Canada you are are a moderate-somewhat conservative. But here in the US you would be tagged as a marxist. I bet for laughs up there you break out ARP.

And in Europe I would be considered equivalent to a Tea Partyist. Actually not much of a political person, just one that knows there are costs and consequences to everything. The trick is to try and balance them as best we can.

[pageyjim]

You are kinda missing my point. Deficit spending or not, a President survives into his second term if he is able to keep the unemployment numbers low. Or if they are high when he begins his first term, he has to see to it that they come down. If he doesn't do that, he is done....PERIOD. No second term, no passing go, no collecting 200 dollars.

That is why Carter bit the dust and Reagan rode off in the sunset.

Basically, Americans do not understand economics, be them micro or macro. They do understand the importance of earning a living and having money in their pocket though. Presidents live and die by this simple fact.

Your general point is generally true. Although I'd like to point out that from election to election 1980-1984 unemployment ended up where it started, 7.1% and 7.2% respectively and in between it was 9.7.
Also excuse me but I will post what I think is appropriate