On Economy, Reagan Gets No Credit, Obama Gets No Blame

Pages: 1 2

So where is it? When do we see the massive bounce-back from this “deeply depressed” economy, at minimum the kind of bounce-back that occurred in the ’80s in spite of the allegedly harmful policies of Reagan?

Krugman’s analysis of the Reagan recovery — a deep recession equals sharp recovery — tells us that the economy should be storming ahead, especially given Obama’s enlightened leadership. But in the seven quarters following the end of this recession, gross domestic product growth has averaged 2.8 percent. In the seven quarters following the Reagan recession, GDP growth averaged 7.1 percent.

Forecasters are now lowering expectations for economic growth. Ominously, “core inflation,” which excludes “volatile” categories of food and fuel, is up. Unemployment, after dipping below 9 percent, is now back to 9.1 percent.

So how does the left explain this?

“This was a financial (emphasis added) crisis,” explains Robert Shapiro, a Clinton administration economist, “and these take longer to recover from.” Does this explain why last spring the Obama administration confidently predicted a “Recovery Summer”? Does this explain why the Obama economic team predicted that the 2009 passage of “stimulus” would prevent unemployment, then at 7 percent, from reaching 8 percent? Krugman, of course, in refusing to credit Reagan policies for the Reagan Recovery, made no distinction between a “financial” and a regular old crisis.

It’s flat-out tough to explain how anti-Reagan policies are supposed to produce Reagan-like growth.

Here’s the real explanation. The top priority of the left isn’t “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union and hero to the left, makes this clear: “Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality.”

The goal of the leftist is social justice — using government to close the gap between the have and the have-nots, to secure the “right” to health care. Obama’s policies are therefore an acceptable trade-off even though they kill jobs — as long as it’s somebody else’s job that gets killed.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.hired-mind.com/ HiredMind

    The passage about how Obama came into office with a supermajority, etc. reminded me of these lines line from John Galt's famous speech:

    "You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins; it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection."

  • scum

    1) The entire health care system under the control of the federal govt? What special mushrooms HAVE you been eating?
    2) Obama bailed the out the corporate elite, who were literally BEGGING for cash, and they're all Republicans.
    So much for your conspiracy garbage.

  • Mario

    Corporate elite as Republicans? Last I read and heard Goldman Sachs managers went into the Obama administration. I will never see the mantra of Republicans=big business ever go away, when most of the corporate elite especially from Silicon Valley are big Obama adminstartion donors.

    • StephenD

      His "Chief of Staff" is from JP Morgan & Chase. Who do you think writes the regulations that will hurt the "little guy?" Toms Tool & Dye can't live up to and employ the smoke stack scrubbers needed in order to be in compliance with the EPA regs…but GE can. Look who his biggest contributors were/are and who got the bailout $$. That is not to let the Repubs off the hook. I've always said, they all piss in the same pot and expect us to swallow it. I say, it's time to clean house…and Senate!