[video=youtube;EIc6UVkI4js]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIc6UVkI4js&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Reagan didn't inherit a U.S. job market that was losing up to 750,000 jobs per month. About 7 months into Reagan's first term it was lower than when he started. Then it shot up. Comparing the two in that aspect in disingenuous at best. Obama Auto crash Bank collapse Stock market collapse Housing market collapse 2 wars
Auto crash? LOL. Reagan bailed out Chrysler, didn't he? Reagan inherited a bank collapse, too (S&Ls, 10% of them failed). The 750,000 jobs lost figure is disingenuous on your part. Before Reagan and his 24M jobs created, and Clinton and his 24M jobs created, 750,000 jobs would have been a pretty significant chunk of the workforce. http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/presidential-stock-market-returns.html
Carter signed the Chrysler bailout into law, no? I see you saw the difference in the unemployment numbers I brought up. There's a whole 8-part youtube series of 3 top economist discussing (and agreeing) that Obama pretty much inherited the worst financial crisis since the GD. I'd need to see a a lot of evidence and information that Reagan inherited a worse economic crisis than Obama to believe it.
Carter signed it, Reagan had to go to congress to get the spending authorized. He only did so when he was satisfied the loans weren't going to be bad ones. So Reagan saved the auto industry! And social security. And your economists are a select 3 from a whole slew of guys whose intent is to spin it so the economy was the worst for Obama, to give him cover. I lived through the 1970s and 1980s and know it was a lot worse than in 2009. The economy was bad for a decade, then took a giant turn for the worse - enough to get Reagan elected.
Is it your contention that 750,000 jobs a month was going to continue? Also, do you think the election result in November didn't have something to do with it? If so, thank you for revealing your ignorance. Do you understand why? Reagan worked with Volcker to tighten the money supply to wring inflation out of the system. That caused that recession. Carter tried to prop up the economy and as a result it limped through his presidency, giving us malaise and even a hint of stagflation. Here's the parallel: Romney is going to have to do the same thing. What do you think was more expensive, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or a military buildup during the Cold War that was so expensive it caused the Soviet Union to economically collapse to try to respond?
Do you have a link to this youtube series? I'd like to see who the economists were. My guess is they are all Keynesians.
The DoD budget in the Reagan years was ~$400B. It's $700B today. Figure in inflation, and it was huge. Consider 11 years ago, the entire budget was $2T and today it's close enough to double that.
lets ban corporate profits. [video=youtube;07fTsF5BiSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=07fTsF5BiSM#![/video]
FWIW, Roubini's claim to fame is his negative outlook and his prediction of the crash. However, there is a slew of guys with a similar profile who predicted doom that never happened. And he is most certainly Keynesian.
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../a-historical-perspective-on-defense-budgets/ * I'm not ignoring your whole post. I'm just not interested in going over every little thing as it would be a waste of time.
wait...that was 2009, after TARP was signed? lets go back to 2006. where a guy makes a stance against popular opinion. [video=youtube;2I0QN-FYkpw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw[/video]
Apparently, Krugman is afraid to debate this guy. [video=youtube;UmYtyl8s05w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmYtyl8s05w[/video]
I am a page back in this thread and there is so much nonsense history coming from Denny and Maxiep that I can't answer it all. Readers too young to remember the early Reagan era may believe it, so to you: Get your economic history somewhere else. Don't believe this thread.
