Originally posted by Star428
Reagan was the best President we've had in America in recent history. No one has measured up to him since.. It's hilarious seeing democrats pathetically trying to tear him down. The only democrat in recent history who is worthy enough to be compared to him is Kennedy and that's a fact. 👆
they will thrown anyone under the bus. even their own mother.
Originally posted by Star428
Reagan was the best President we've had in America in recent history. No one has measured up to him since.. It's hilarious seeing democrats pathetically trying to tear him down. The only democrat in recent history who is worthy enough to be compared to him is Kennedy and that's a fact. 👆
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
they will thrown anyone under the bus. even their own mother.
Originally posted by Robtard
Biden has officially announced that he will not be running. Hillary mist be thrilled, despite he veiled jab at her during his refusal speech.
He took a jab at her and didn't endorse her, its glorious.
Obama knows if Hilary gets the presidency, he will no longer be the leader of the democratic party, However if a republican gets in Obama will still lead the DNC.
Smart moves Obama is making here.
I would think having someone of your party - with whom you agree on many (most?) things - in the White House would supercede leading an impotent party while the other party controls both Congress and the White House. I doubt Obama wants to lead much of anything politically once he's out of office; I can't imagine the drain the Presidency would have on anyone in the office for eight years.
Biden not running was fairly inevitable. Hillary had to tank for him to consider it. He's a party guy; he's not going to shake things up just for the sake of it. The nomination is hers now. Something catastrophic would have to happen for it not to be.
538 is still pretty low on Trump's chances to get the GOP nomination, but they haven't settled on another favorite. That remains the only good theatre until the general election.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Reagan economy/policies>Obama
Except, one, they were sold as 'trickle down' and they didn't trickle down, two, they said that the increased economic activity from lowering taxes would make it revenue neutral or gain money, and it didn't, and three, Obama has cut unemployment about as much as Reagan counting from their respective quite similar high-points (and the financial crash he faced was bigger than Reagan's in terms of amount of the economy lost- the early 80s recession was a 2.7% GDP hit, the '08 one a 4.3% hit, yet the recovery time of the latter was only a few months longer).
It is interesting how people are convinced Reagan was so good economically and Obama so bad, even though their performances are not far apart.
You can't really have it both ways- the numbers say they're in the same league.
Star
Reagan was the best President we've had in America in recent history. No one has measured up to him since.. It's hilarious seeing democrats pathetically trying to tear him down. The only democrat in recent history who is worthy enough to be compared to him is Kennedy and that's a fact.
The President who has done the best economically during my lifetime, and probably yours, was, fairly easily, Bill Clinton.
On the whole, party for party, starting with Kennedy taking office, ending with Obama's first term, 42 million private-sector jobs had been added while Democrats held the White House, compared with 24 million while Republicans were in office.
During which time, the Republicans were in office 28 years, Democrats 24.
It is pretty impressive that some are convinced the Republicans are better at economics despite that, but the numbers are fairly one-sided on the matter.
Also, the single greatest job growth in a single term by percentage last century was under FDR, with his New Deal policies, to toss that in too.
Originally posted by Digi
I would think having someone of your party - with whom you agree on many (most?) things - in the White House would supercede leading an impotent party while the other party controls both Congress and the White House. I doubt Obama wants to lead much of anything politically once he's out of office; I can't imagine the drain the Presidency would have on anyone in the office for eight years.Biden not running was fairly inevitable. Hillary had to tank for him to consider it. He's a party guy; he's not going to shake things up just for the sake of it. The nomination is hers now. Something catastrophic would have to happen for it not to be.
538 is still pretty low on Trump's chances to get the GOP nomination, but they haven't settled on another favorite. That remains the only good theatre until the general election.
Biden and Hillary are pretty similar on politics too- going by their senate careers, Hillary is slightly to the left of Biden, and there's not a lot of call for someone slightly to the right of the forerunner.
They seem to get along too. He may want to be President, but the opening is just not there and the likely winner is someone he's worked with a lot.
This is bad news for Bernie, since while some of Biden's support will go to him, more is certainly going to Hillary's.
Which, in retrospect, makes me glad he held off this long, as it made the first race tenser.
Hm, I also wonder if O'Malley will be able to pick up any from this... he's the other possible establishment-alternate, after all.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure if serious?
Time's under the impression that the rest of the country hates Hillary as much as he does.
One of the reasons I bother posting here is to judge the reaction of people on the other side, but I find it interesting that Time, Star, and the like have, like, zero interest in learning what we actually think, *or* in trying to actually convince us to their side.
If one posts data that contradicts theirs, their reaction is, often as not, 'nope' or simply ignoring it/calling everyone who believes it to be in denial, rather than even explaining it away or trying to convince us that there's something better about the Republicans/how the numbers can be read another way.
If it's just explained away that at least tells me something about their views and how they reconcile things, but if they ignore it, that's boring. It kinda says they're just working on echo chamber / confirmation bias reasoning, where only information that agrees gets in.
One other interesting thing in response to this particular hypothesis of his specifically is Time's still convinced that Hillary and Barack hate each other, when her term as Secretary of State was noted as being an unusually smooth one.
The divisions between Obama and Clinton that many observers had originally predicted, never happened.[4] Indeed, a writer for The New York Times Magazine declared that "Obama and Clinton have instead led the least discordant national-security team in decades, despite enormous challenges on almost every front."[4]
What someone says about Hillary overrides what actually happened to them. That's interesting, don't you think?
Originally posted by Q99
Biden and Hillary are pretty similar on politics too- going by their senate careers, Hillary is slightly to the left of Biden, and there's not a lot of call for someone slightly to the right of the forerunner.They seem to get along too. He may want to be President, but the opening is just not there and the likely winner is someone he's worked with a lot.
This is bad news for Bernie, since while some of Biden's support will go to him, more is certainly going to Hillary's.
Which, in retrospect, makes me glad he held off this long, as it made the first race tenser.
Hm, I also wonder if O'Malley will be able to pick up any from this... he's the other possible establishment-alternate, after all.
The slim remaining hope for Sanders involved Biden entering. So yeah, this locks things up for Hillary (though they were pretty well locked up before anyway).
He held off to make sure Hillary wasn't going to sputter out of the gates. She didn't, so he's free to retire in peace, which I'm sure is what he wanted.
Originally posted by leandraycdiseth
We already agreed to disagree on this point where you believe Obama outperformed Reagan simply because you think his crisis was bigger. The numbers don't actually show him outperforming Reagan.
The numbers show they both cut employment from around 10% to around 5%. Obama is in line to finish lower than Reagan did. The crisis was bigger.
Anyway, one can talk about which one was somewhat better than the other, but it's certainly the case where the improvement numbers are not massively different.
As for the new deal?
history.com/topics/new-deal
historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/america-1918-1939/was-the-new-deal-a-success/
ushistory.org/us/49g.aspIt wasn't a success and it prolonged the Great Depression, just like bailing out the banks. We won't come to an agreement here because we adhere to different economic principles
The New Deal caused employment to go up- the GD wasn't over immediately, but those articles are incorrect that it wasn't helping. Then the deal was paused. Employment dipped again. Second New Deal, went up again.
You can see in the graph. Unemployment starts going down where the ND starts. You can see the pause where congress paused the New Deal.
You can see that employment began improving in 1933, 5 years before WW2 manufacturing got into high speed. We only fully caught up during the war, but where the job improvement began is immediately and obviously visible.
We may not agree, but it is still a simple matter of fact that the rises in employment were heavily corrolated to the New Deal, it just wasn't a magic instant fix. The pages only note whether the depression was completely over, while the actual numbers show what contributed to the recovery and by how much.
Also, bailing out the banks was an incredibly smart thing to do, a great bi-partisan move GWB was right in supporting. You see, without banks, businesses couldn't get loans to cover things like temporary inventory expenses, expansions, and so on. Many businesses have revenue streams that spike during certain times of the years
You haven't shown any historical numbers that puts democrats over republicans.
... I just did?
Here's the article the 42 vs 24 million number came from. It's a 2012 article from Factcheck.org, a nonpa.
Uh no Q99, the boom had nothing to do with the New Deal. It's the fact that we created and shipped out materials for WWII and post WWII policies that kept our unemployment to close to 0%. You're really misattributing things to the new deal, just like you're doing with Obama's policies because it fits in with your political leanings.
One, the rise in employment began many years before WW2.
Two, World War 2 is, itself, an example of Keynsian economics. Note we were not fully paid for much of that stuff we made until decades later, and making tanks and guns adds zero economic value themselves, whether they blow something up or get blown up they might as well have been dumped in the ocean. It was purely the act of the government hiring people to do a lot of non-directly-economic-beneficial-work in promise of money *far* later. I.e. it's the same type of thing anyway, pretty much just a big stimulus check though only *less* efficient because it's not making roads and such*, and it merely capped off a recovery that'd been underway for years- as the chart shows.
The post-WW2 policies you talk about- Things stayed good when taxes and services were high, and did so for decades.
Which was precipitated by Clinton. Solid fundamentals had nothing to do with the WWII/post WWII boom
The '08 boom was precipitated by people of both parties who continued some policies for years- the initial deregulation during Clinton. The lack of government response to the subprime package deals that began under Bush. Alan Greenspan's policies, which Greenspan himself admitted were wrong.
Also, I do want to note that in order to support your point, you're having to dismiss the longest boom period of the last century, a multi-decade period, as having nothing to do with good fundamentals.
You're having to chalk up the longest, most stable economic period purely to 'luck'. And not the policies in play at the start of it or during it's timeframe. And the removal of said policies that just-happened to be when the period became more unstable.
Similarly, during the great depression, things just-happened to start improving under FDR's New Deal, just-happened to have a double dip when the deal paused, just-happened to resume improving when the deal resumed, and then the part we both agree upon, completely finished when a lot of people were hired by the US government for a massive public works project in Europe that wouldn't see the lion share of it's payment til well after the recovery was complete.
Your 'Economic luck' hypothesis seems to very closely have swings of luck match the chance in policies.
I would posit to you, if you're right and it's just luck, then the universe itself must hate your economics, because it keeps swinging against you for almost the entirety of the last century.