This in a nutshell.....

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's actually a good chart showing that the ecnomy Obama inherited was worse than the economy Reagan inherited. Thanks. But using such a long time period really obscures the differences. So, like, here's real GDP (blue) and nominal GDP (red) from 1978 though January 1981. This is what Reagan inhereited:

And here's real GDP and nominal GDP from 2006 thorugh Janury 2009. This is what Obama inherited:

Which do you think is worse?

Also, too, I appreciate that you are now using the correct unemployment number of 7.5% (down from your original claim of 9.5%). Well, Obama inherited 7.6% unemployment which was rising and on an upward trajectory. And since you're really smart and know all about employment as a lagging indicator, you know full well that the employment effects of the Great Recession had hardly reached their peak at the time of Obama's inauguration.




You credit Reagan for doing nothing. I get it.




The economy Reagan inherited had problems, not doubt. But those problems were amendable to traditional policy solutions: increased interest rates on the monetary side and increased spending and tax cuts on the fiscal side. And those policy solutions were imlemented. For Obama, traditional monetary policy tools were not available as interest rated were already as zero. Hence, quantitative easing, which is better than nothing but a non-traditional tool for good reason. On the fiscal side, things were positive as the start but for now the government is cutting spending instead of increasing it, which is contraining growth. In the end, you've got a very big problem not amenable to traditional tools of monetary policy and fiscal policmakers doing the opposite of what they ought to be doing. I wonder why the economy sucks

LMAO... but those policies that he had to implement forced a recession. Those were a direct result of Carter failing to act. The same policies Reagan implemented should have been done in the late 70's. Volcker began to do so under Carter, but then reversed course when the economy started slowing down.

Hyperinflation, anemic growth, double digit interest rates... again, ask anyone that remembers living in the late 70's which was worse.

Again... the markets began rebounding in early 2009... Obama inherited that too. Reagan inherited a mess. As you admit, he HAD to let Volcker implement the policies that led to the recession. That is what the economy required at the time for a long term solution.

 

[Jarod]

Also, too, here's the unemployment trend Reagan inhertied:

And this is what Obama inherited:

Reagan inherited the downside of the spike in 1980. Obama inherited steady increasing unemployment.

See, according to Supercandy... Carter messed things up just as badly as GWB did.... Those charts don't mean anything.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Is why Hilliary will win in 2016 if she runs. The only Republican that polls even close to her in the national polls is Chris Christie and Christie is not well liked by the conservative Republican base. His strength is with moderates and independants and in many States only Registered Republicans can vote in a Republican primary meaning Christie cannot win the GOP primaries or will have to go so far to the right that he'll alienate his independent supporters.

It's looking good for Hilliary if she decides to run. What really surprised me is the strength of Elizabeth Warren who is more popular nationally, even with only around 50% of those polled knowing enough about her than all the Republican field except Christie.

It does look good for the GOP presidential aspirations as it may be tanked by the Solid South once again. That would make it 6 out of 7 Presidential elections that the GOP has lost the national vote due mainly to the reactionary conservatives of the Solid South.

http://news.yahoo.com/hottest-politicians-america-named-151454997--abc-news-politics.html

oh god we have this conversation every 4 years.

Chris christie is the new guliani. It's the name mouth breathers throw around because they can't name any others. There is very little suggest he'll be a front runner.

Name recognition is overrated. Once you heat up the campaign to full throttle and every news cycle is talking about you, that is no longer an issue. The most name recognition will do is help you get the jump in your own parties primaries.

++

Now on to hilary, it's not "if" she runs. She's running. End of discussion. It's happening. It wont be stopped. She is going to run, period.

And yes she has a very good chance of just scooping the whole thing.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So the question here is.....will Hilliary run and if not, would Warren then be the Democratic front runner?

Could two women run on the same ticket?

Why not? Two idiot ran on the same ticket 2000/2004 and won.

I LOVE THIS THOUGHT!!!

I swear sometimes I wonder how you all have posted on politics boards and come away with zero understanding of electoral politics. There is no way in HELL clinton would add warren to the ticket. There is absolutely no gain. Anyone that would be excited by warren being on the ticket would already be voting for hilary anyway.

Traditionally candidates will try to balance the ticket somehow. Although picking a candidate to lock up a state seldom works, campaigns still operate that way. Or maybe they'll want to capture some demographic they don't already possess. In either case, warren wouldn't deliver on either of those things. It simply is not going to happen guys.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

The people of Mass like her and love her, that does not necessarily mean she can win Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

she barely won mass. I think she got 52% of the vote. If you are a democrat and can only get 52% in massachusetts, I would like to see how you can translate that into national success. Warren is dead in the water.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I swear sometimes I wonder how you all have posted on politics boards and come away with zero understanding of electoral politics. There is no way in HELL clinton would add warren to the ticket. There is absolutely no gain. Anyone that would be excited by warren being on the ticket would already be voting for hilary anyway.

Traditionally candidates will try to balance the ticket somehow. Although picking a candidate to lock up a state seldom works, campaigns still operate that way. Or maybe they'll want to capture some demographic they don't already possess. In either case, warren would deliver on either of those things. It simply is not going to happen guys.

Can you explain this? It is extremely ambiguous, at least to me anyway.

 

[cawacko]

Can you explain this? It is extremely ambiguous, at least to me anyway.

I think he meant to write "wouldn't deliver on..."

 

[Howey]

Hillary/Bill '16!

 

[Rune]

Nonsense. You deliberately implied that I had stated it was in recession. LMAO at 'growing economy'. Ask the 7.5% that were unemployed how great it was. Ask Americans who were paying double digit interest on their homes and credit cards how great that economy was. Ask them also how great double digit inflation was.

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/...pdf/gdp_current_real_per-capita_1789-2012.pdf



I credit Reagan for letting Volcker (the correct spelling) implement his plan. Volcker had previously attempted it under Carter, but when the inevitable downturn in short term growth began, Volcker suddenly reversed policy. I wonder what could have caused him to do that. The reelection campaign of a certain President? Volcker proved under Reagan he was willing to go the distance, yet he didn't under Carter. I wonder why.



Dear moron... do try reading what I wrote. I said quite clearly that the two inherited very different sets of problems. That is why I ignored you. Because you ignored the fact that I had already stated the same thing to Jarod. I didn't state that the solution was the same. I stated that the economy Reagan inherited was falling apart. The one that Obama inherited bottomed out a couple of months into his first term. Both were serious problems. Saying Obama inherited a far worse situation is debatable at best for you.

You are so full of shit simplefreak, Cheney devastated the entire world economy. Obama's job was far more difficult. What a lying super freak you are.

How many Trillions did the FED print and lend to banks all over the world? 16 Trillion IIRC. Dumbass.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You are so full of shit simplefreak, Cheney devastated the entire world economy. Obama's job was far more difficult. What a lying super freak you are.

How many Trillions did the FED print and lend to banks all over the world? 16 Trillion IIRC. Dumbass.

Please enlighten me. What is it that Cheney did that devastated the entire world economy?