Anonymous wrote:...
Ummm, sure. It is all Regan's fault. It is strange how all of those Regan presidency deregulations did not start doing any damage until about 2007.

Some infections take a long time to fester. But I admit I was being a bit facetious to illustrate my point that it's hard to identify cause and effect in a complex system. I thought of blaming "George Washington rather than George Bush", but figured that was pushing it too far even for someone as shameless as me.

Anonymous wrote:

I'd say, for example, that the most significant economic aspect of Reagan's presidency was deregulation, and that the measure of that is what we have been undergoing for the past few years. You see, I'm a true liberal -- I'm not one of those pikers who blames GWB, I go back to the source, RR!

Ummm, sure. It is all Regan's fault. It is strange how all of those Regan presidency deregulations did not start doing any damage until about 2007.

Back then, I was told that if Regan got elected that the world would end in a giant nuclear holocaust and nuclear winter. Instead the Berlin wall fell.

And thank him for giving weapons to Iran, in violation of US law. That didn't go badly at all.

I'd say, for example, that the most significant economic aspect of Reagan's presidency was deregulation, and that the measure of that is what we have been undergoing for the past few years. You see, I'm a true liberal -- I'm not one of those pikers who blames GWB, I go back to the source, RR!

Ummm, sure. It is all Regan's fault. It is strange how all of those Regan presidency deregulations did not start doing any damage until about 2007.

Back then, I was told that if Regan got elected that the world would end in a giant nuclear holocaust and nuclear winter. Instead the Berlin wall fell.

You know the old saying about economists, that if you say them all end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. That's because the only facts they have are statistics, and statistics are always biased by the choice of which you gather and how you gather them.

To really assess a president's economic policies would take a sophisticated long-term analysis of their policy initiatives and how they influenced the economy. And that analysis would vary greatly from economist to economist.

I'd say, for example, that the most significant economic aspect of Reagan's presidency was deregulation, and that the measure of that is what we have been undergoing for the past few years. You see, I'm a true liberal -- I'm not one of those pikers who blames GWB, I go back to the source, RR!

Doesn't matter who gets elected, job growth is going to be slow going for a long time. The speed of change in technology continues to render low skill jobs obsolete and this especially true in service sector jobs like retail. Those jobs are never coming back because our lifestyles have changed so much that we have scaled back on B&M shopping and that will continue to happen. There are so many other sectors where this is true. Sure there will be more jobs but they won't be available to the masses of Americans who are looking for non-professional jobs.

Ronnie sure looks a lot better when you include his second term. Kind of a cheat, there.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, we'll just ignore how things were in 2008-9, and ignore that Romney isn't really offering any new ideas, and ignore that McCain/Palin weren't either.

Cut taxes, cut regulations, and pray to our betters that they will shower us with jobs.

The taxes have been cut for a decade. That experiment has clearly failed.

Yeah, we'll just ignore how things were in 2008-9, and ignore that Romney isn't really offering any new ideas, and ignore that McCain/Palin weren't either.

Cut taxes, cut regulations, and pray to our betters that they will shower us with jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html




...and I was telling everyone that if Obama got elected, that he would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan! It looks like I was right.