Posted Without Comment
Peter Robinson ·
August 7, 2012 at 7:21pm
(With a tip of the hat to Fred Booth.)
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
- Let your voice be heard! Join the conversation -- or start your own.
- Follow your favorite Contributors and fellow Members
- Enjoy Premium Podcasts
- Read Member-initiated conversations
- Keep tabs on your favorite conversations
- Like, Quote or Share your favorite post or comments
- Receive special Member-only invitations... and more!
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
Bring back Slick Willy!
May '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
That is a great graphic. I used to do that sort of thing for a living. That is well done.
Jun '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
But, Bill Clinton without Speaker Gingrich doesn't work. You need the pair.
Re: Posted Without Comment
You know, you could look at this and conclude that it just doesn't matter all that much who the President is, at least from a macroeconomic perspective. Of the four biggest job-creating administrations, two were D and two were R. Of the five administrations with the highest unemployment rates, three have been R and two have been D. Three of the four lowest unemployment rates belong to Reagan (the most conservative) and Truman and Johnson (the most domestically liberal).
My own view is that there are lots and lots and lots of other reasons to send Barry O off to an early and lucrative retirement, but that the economy as a whole is going to prosper, or not, as a result of changes in productivity, technology, international competitiveness, European stability, and so on -- and a lot less as a result of who calls 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home.
May '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
Cool graph. One other number that should be on there is the overall percentage of the workforce that each increase was.
It would stand to reason that Reagan's 16.7 million increase was a greater percentage increase of the workforce than Clinton's, as the total U.S. population was smaller 20 year's earlier.
That makes Obama's "contribution" even smaller...
Apr '12
Re: Posted Without Comment
Presidents can only affect to what degree job creation is inhibitted. Their only choice is whether they stand in the way, or choose not to.
Bill Clinton presided over an economic revolution equivalent to the widespread adoption of the automobile, or the railroad. We should not credit him for choosing NOT to stand in it's way. He certainly didn't cause it.
"The negation of a negative is not a reward, the withdrawl of your armed hoodlums is not an incentive, the offer not to murder me is not a value."
- John Galt
Edited on August 7, 2012 at 8:31pmMay '12
Re: Posted Without Comment
Guess that's why he needed to edit those presidential biographies, he'd be overlooked otherwise.
May '11
Re: Posted Without Comment
That's one of the original posts on Political Math:
http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819
He also has a great YouTube channel, you may remember some of the early vids going a bit viral.
Mar '11
Re: Posted Without Comment
I posted this on Friday in the member feed.It is a good piece of propaganda, that is about it.
Jun '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
Steve Manacek: You know, you could look at this and conclude that it just doesn't matter all that much who the President is, at least from a macroeconomic perspective. . . .
My own view is that there are lots and lots and lots of other reasons to send Barry O off to an early and lucrative retirement, but that the economy as a whole is going to prosper, or not, as a result of changes in productivity, technology, international competitiveness, European stability, and so on -- and a lot less as a result of who calls 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home.
I agree with the thrust of Steve's point--there is a lot out of a president's control. Nonetheless, even though it isn't definitive, it does tell us a lot about the Obama presidency. No one in recent history has even approached the negative economics of the last four years. At some point, you can only conclude that the president is not doing the job.
I also agree that this is only one of many reasons to retire Mr. Obama.
Edited on August 7, 2012 at 9:06pmMay '12
Re: Posted Without Comment
Obama is liable to use this as a graphic about why he needs four more years to catch up.
Apr '11
Re: Posted Without Comment
Mel Foil
But, Bill Clinton without Speaker Gingrich doesn't work. You need the pair. · 1 hour ago
The Clinton cut spending far more severely in his first Congress than in his last three (along with raising taxes). I'd be happy to have liberal or conservative Clinton in office; the Gerry Ford scenario (where Biden has to step down, a Bill clone takes his place, then Obama steps down) would do an awful lot of good for the country.
Jul '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
tabula rasa
I agree with the thrust of Steve's point--there is a lot out of a president's control.
This hasn't stopped Mr. O up to now, and given a shot at another 4 years he just might have that 'impediment' sewn up...
May '10
Re: Posted Without Comment
Steve Manacek: You know, you could look at this and conclude that it just doesn't matter all that much who the President is, at least from a macroeconomic perspective. Of the four biggest job-creating administrations, two were D and two were R. Of the five administrations with the highest unemployment rates, three have been R and two have been D. Three of the four lowest unemployment rates belong to Reagan (the most conservative) and Truman and Johnson (the most domestically liberal).
My own view is that there are lots and lots and lots of other reasons to send Barry O off to an early and lucrative retirement, but that the economy as a whole is going to prosper, or not, as a result of changes in productivity, technology, international competitiveness, European stability, and so on -- and a lot less as a result of who calls 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home.
I agree entirely. Correlation isn't causation. Unfortunately, the average voter assumes the former is or implies the latter when it comes to economic affairs. Hence, the greatest danger is an ignorant electorate.
Jul '11
Re: Posted Without Comment
Raising taxes, increasing spending, and expanding gov't are all Barry's legacy. He can own his proud job growth numbers, with pride. He's seemingly doing all he can to make unemployment go up, job creation go down, and spending increase.
I think I have that about right. At least most of the other presidents were trying to go in another direction, with better results for Americans as a whole.
Barry doesn't want that. Barry wants a milquetoastian middle for everyone, with all-seeing, all-knowing community organizers telling each of us how we must live, each according to our needs.
I'm still wondering why there aren't more ads featuring Barry cozying up to Reagan, then graphics demonstrating the differing fiscal and tax policies, and the results. These things sell themselves.
Feb '12
Re: Posted Without Comment
I too started to focus on the D's and the R's that's not the true picture. Don't forget:
1) Reagan brought us out of the high misery index that was Carter
2) Clinton (needed Gingrich good point above) was a new Democrat
2) Kennedy cut taxes
4) Excessive regulation and lawsuits curb economic activity
5) Obama is definitely Carter, not Clinton, not JFK or LBJ
Edited on August 8, 2012 at 6:46amFeb '12
Re: Posted Without Comment
Chris Campion:
I'm still wondering why there aren't more ads featuring Barry cozying up to Reagan, then graphics demonstrating the differing fiscal and tax policies, and the results. These things sell themselves. · 3 hours ago
That is a great idea, maybe have audio "I knew Ronald Reagan, and you're no Reagan."
Re: Posted Without Comment
Anyone know how the "job gains" figure is arrived at in the graph?
Feb '11
Re: Posted Without Comment
I have the same question---also: Are the gains normalized for length of term? You can't reasonably compare a 4-year term with an 8-year term.