On jobs, Obama and Reagan about equal

[bigtree]

As Republicans gear up to run against President Barack Obama's record for creating private-sector jobs, they may encounter an unexpected glitch: It looks a lot like Ronald Reagan's.

Obama has presided over a loss of 1.6 million of the nation's 111 million private-company jobs since taking office, according to official statistics. But since employment hit post-recession lows in February 2010, companies have added 2.6 million jobs, beating the 2.4 million created between the bottom of the 1982 recession and this point in Reagan's first term. Joblessness then was 9.2 percent.

"When I plug in the data, it comes out exactly 50-50 for the Democrats," said Ray Fair, a Yale economist whose political-prediction model uses economic forecasts to set election odds. When last calculated in July, Fair's model predicted Obama would win 53 percent of 2012's vote. "It's exactly a tie . . . "

GOP candidates have said Obama's policies have frightened businesses out of hiring. On that score, Obama's record so far is better than his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush. By September 2003, Bush had presided over the loss of 3.2 million private-sector jobs.


read more: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111106/GPG03/111060416/On-jobs-Obama-Reagan-about-equal

[mmonk]

1. Recommended.

[Tennessee Gal]

2. Don't count on Republicons telling the truth about this.

And don't count on it being spread widely by the media.

[bluedave]

3. please

no comparison to Mr. Bedtime for Bonzo.

[bigtree]

5. well

. . . it's a factual counter to the Reagan-loving republicans criticizing this Democratic president. Since republicans are so enamored of Reagan's job creation (they tout it every election) they should be made to face the fact that their idol was no more successful at this point in creating jobs than the current Democrat in office.

Of course, that parity can easily evaporate as the election nears, since job growth isn't expected to be as robust as it was after Reagan's slump bottomed out. We'll see.

The Bush record comparison is more interesting, to me.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. Except that Reagan didn't inherit a collapsing economy or a debt crisis

He created our debt crisis and moved us from the progressive tax policies that worked to regressive tax policies that have failed.

[bigtree]

6. that's the rub

. . . he got the hooptie government that Bush ran into the ground.

[boston bean]

7. If the bar is set at... he's just as good as Reagan, we are pretty fucked. nt

[bigtree]

8. of course, you're leaving out more than a few things about the economies

You could use that as your ultimate measure if you believe reagan's policies would have had the same impact on the economy as President Obama's as it stood when he took office.

The numbers only tell part of the story. Reagan pulled the rug out from under the poor and lower-income working class and gave away the bank to the wealthy, sparking a real estate boom which resulted, in the end, in a huge glut of empty buildings under foreclosure. That's a legacy we're still trying to overcome.

Also, there was his economic sophistry about money trickling down from his wealthy recipients of his round of tax breaks and incentives. See: David Stockman

[boston bean]

9. So we shouldn't be comparing the two, right? nt

[bigtree]

10. depends

I think that it's integral in the entire narrative concerning job creation -- not just a myopic focus on this one statistic, but used as part of a detailed explanation, much like the one I attempted. I appreciate context and clarification, though.