But I’m sure that guy who’s been unemployed for two years will be receptive to the Republican plan to cut unemployment benefits.
Oct. 3 ,2008 was when TARP, a 700 million dollar gift to banks, was made law. Who was president? It was a reaction to a horrible financial crisis that came to a head in 2007-8. Who was president then? Which president came in with a 4 percent unemployment in 2000? Which president was in when we were shedding jobs at 800 thou a month?
Yep RR Americans know who made this mess ,even if you can’t figure it out.
November 2007, we dropped 533 thousand jobs in one month. That of course in RR land is better than the 18 thou created last month.
http://www.politicalactionnetwork.com/2010/02/us-job-loss-from-dec-2007-to-jan-2010-bush-to-obama/
Here is a nice easy chart to read. Explains where the jobs went and who was president.
But what they think NOW doesn’t matter. What matters is what they think 15 months from now.
I think there is a difference between inheriting a bad economy, and making a bad one horrible. This is essentially what Jimmy Carter did in 1977, and it’s what Obama has done now.
It’s a notion of leadership.
Reagan inherited a bad economy, and it got worse in his first two years. But he provided the confidence that allowed us to climb out. He got inflation under control. The point is that he could pivot when he needed to, work with the other side when necessary, stuck to is guns when it was important.
As a lot of people point out, there’s a ton of cash out there. The Dow has bounced back. But no one is hiring, because there’s no confidence.
Too Bad Bush isn’t going to be on the ballot next year.
Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the “Republican Party’s candidate for president” than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama’s re-election prospects.
You seem to want to paint a very broad brush there. The average unemployment rate on Bush’s term (not just the high points) was 5.2%. Under Clinton it was 5.6% on average. Either of these numbers are respectable. Under Obama, the average rate- so far- has been 9.4%.
But let’s just pretend Bush’s whole presidency was his last year, because honestly, that’s sensible. Heck, I’ll admit, the reason I call myself a Recovering Republican and have soured a bit on them is that I lost my job in 2008. But even as bad as that was, I still managed to land a new job (albeit one that paid less) in about two weeks.
And this is where it gets tricky… The other recessions- 81, 92, 01- I took hits and had to change jobs, and it was a setback in the short term, but in those other cases, I was back to where I was and better within a year.
This one, I’m struggling and it’s a day-to-day thing. And it’s that way for everyone I know, whether they have jobs or not.
Even the unemployment rate itself is misleading. Under Bush or Clinton, a 5% unemployment rate (where they both were most of their terms) was really about 5%. the 9% is misleading because it really should be 16%, when you count folks whose benefits have run out and they’ve stopped looking, or people like my friend who had a baby in 2009 and hasn’t even bothered to get back in because the market is so discouraging.
It gets back to the Reagan Question. If Perry or Bachmann or Romney can look the debate audience in the eye and ask the simple question, “Are you better off than you were for years ago?”, and the answer most of them reply is “Hell, NO!” Obama’s done.
And if Obama asks the same audience “Do you think these guys have a plan to make things better?” the answer will probably be “Ennnnh… probably not,” the Repubs might as well go home. Well, maybe not Bachmann – she’s too insane to know she’s toast.
And he was re-elected. The only difference between Reagan and Obama is you refuse to see the similarities.
Unemployment is a serious problem. But your thinking stops there. You keep saying, “Unemployment is a serious problem. People won’t vote for Obama because there’s a serious problem. Therefore the Republicans win.”
But it’s not a given. As you’ve pointed out, Reagan got re-elected despite a serious unemployment problem. When people have a problem they want to elect somebody they feel can solve it not just assign blame.
So in this year’s campaigning, Obama is going to be telling people the things he will do to help solve unemployment and take care of people who are unemployed. Judging from what we’ve seen so far, the Republican nominee will say unemployment is all Obama’s fault and offer no solutions other than extending ten year old tax cuts.
Word of advice to any Republican nominees - don’t try this. Because the real reply will be “Oh, fuck yeah, with the problems I’ve been having lately I had forgotten how bad things were four years ago. Shit, remember how bad Bush was and how we all felt like Obama was literally pulling the country back from the brink of disaster? And Cheney, let’s not forget him. You know (Perry or Bachmann or Romney) really put things in perspective with that question. It reminds me of how much worse off we could be.”
Nothing penetrates RR world. He says wrong stuff ,then when confronted with real data, claims it is irrelevant. His wrists must be broken from all the hand waving. All the facts and data meet his belief system. His beliefs always win. Forget the facts. The Repubs will win no matter who they put up.
Actually, the only similiarity I see with Obama is to Jimmy Carter. The guy looks more like Jimmy every day.
But unemployment ISN’T the only problem. Gasoline prices are a serious problem. flailing around in Libya and Afghanistan is a problem. the inability to get anything through congress is a problem. 1.4 trillion dollar deficits are a problem. The fact he crammed through a health care plan that most of the country hates is a problem.
Reagan got re-elected because he solved the unemployment problem, after he solved the inflation problem. What everyone forgets is that the reason why unemployment shot up under Reagan was that just before he got into office, Paul Volcker tightened the money supply to get Jimmy’s double digit inflaction under control. So, yeah, it got high there for a while, but came down quickly once inflation was tackled. In this case, nothing the fed or Obama seems to be doing is having a dent in unemployment, because businesses just down want to hire while this guy is in the White House threatening more taxes and a bad health care plan.
The problem is, that’s all obama does is talk. And talk. and talk. And really, the country is tuning him out.
Obama has proved you don’t need to articulate a plan to get elected in bad times.
The guy sat there and said 'Hope" “Change” and a lot of people just voted for him.
And now things are far worse than when he got in.
The only way he could have proven that would be by failing to articulate a plan and still getting elected. I don’t know what you were paying attention to, but in the 2008 campaign, I heard Obama telling us all about his plans for all sorts of things. “Not articulating a plan” would be more something like offering blank pieces of paper as an alternative to the health care bill.
Oh, wait, I forgot, that plan was too detailed, since it was over three pages long, meaning that the Republicans weren’t able to read it.
Well, let’s see now.
His health care plan was essentially stealing Romney’s plan because he couldn’t get his own party to go along with his. You know, the nuns used to rap our knuckles for that sort of thing.
Seem to remember him promising the seas would recede and the planet would heal. Ummm, yeah, right.
Look, the guy got elected because people had a hissy over Bush and his war. Except now he’s expanded that war. Hasn’t closed Gitmo like he promised or gave the terrorists a fair trial.
Was it a good plan?
And I hate to tell you, but private schools have gone way downhill since you attended. Nowadays, they don’t assign students to solve the health care problems in a nation of 300 million people. Heck, I’d be lucky if I could manage a C- on that assignment.
No, actually, it’s an awful plan. It’s also not the plan your guys wanted, which was something like what Canada has.
If you accept the premise that the greed of big insurance and big pharma are the problem, (and I think there’s some merit to that), you solution should not be throwing more money at them. He figured he could just ram it down our throats, and most of the country hates the plan. And then he lost the House, nearly lost the Senate, and he scratching his head wondering why.
We had an unemployment shortage? If so, then, yes, he solved the problem.
Unemployment was < 6% in 1979 - 1980 and over 10% by 1983.
There you have it, folks: The one and only health care plan the Republicans ever came up with was an awful plan.