Will 2012 be "Morning in America again"?

cristoir

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was swept to office on the back of a national shift of voters against Jimmy Carter. Reagan promised Conservative solutions to America's problems and was buoyed by a realise of the Iranian hostages on his inauguration day.

His Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was his legislative milestone. It slashed taxes across the board. However the economy failed to grow and went into recession. With the deficit ballooning out of control Reagan signed (to the disgust of his Conservative base) the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. This reversed many of the effects of ERTA and was the second largest tax increase in US history.

With the economy in recession and his largest legislative achievement gutted things looked bad for Reagan in 1982. America gave it's first verdict on his policy's in the 1982 midterms. Republican suffered heavily and Reagan's popularity was sinking in polls.

But in 1983 the economy left recession and began to grow but he was by no mean's out of the woods. In was 1984 when Reagan's luck changed. The US economy (while still somewhat weak) rocketed and the national mood became upbeat.

In the 1984 election Reagan ran a campaign ad entitled: "It's Morning in America again" perhaps the most famous political ad ever. It's message was simple: America had been renewed and it was well and truly on the way to recovery. The Democratic party helped Reagan's campaign when it nominated left-winger Walter Mondale who appealed to the their base but terrified independents.

Reagan won a landslide with 49 of the 59 states. An astonishing recovery for a man who had effectively led the nation into recession just 3 years earlier.

You must admit the similarity's between Reagan and Obama seem vast. Both where first elected during economic uncertainty, both reviled by the political opponents, both spending their first years in office struggling to revive a stubborn economy by using ideologically controversial methods and both hit hard in midterms. The Republican party is also moving to the Right in a similar way the Democrats moved to the left in the 80's. Will the GOP nominate it's own Walter Mondale this year?

The US economy is showing signs of recovery. 200,000 jobs where in created December and unemployment has been decreasing steadily as of late. On election day 1984 US unemployment was at 7.2 percent. Which is very high in a historical context. Reagan showed that you can get re-elected in a somewhat reasonably weak economy with quite poor jobs numbers provided there are clear signs of growth, the national mood is optimistic and your challenger appears unable to offer any solutions. Obama will hope replicate these factors come November. But if unemployment remain above the 8 percent mark he is in trouble.

So do you think 2012 can be "Morning in America again?

RichieC

Interesting parallel all right. I am pretty convinced Obama will win the election handily.

I don't see any of the current republican nominees beating him.

dr.bollocko

RichieC wrote: »

Interesting parallel all right. I am pretty convinced Obama will win the election handily.

I don't see any of the current republican nominees beating him.

Romney's elusive millionaire Mormon image is not necessarily going to play well... Already he is dividing the party.

Him and Gingrich trading low blows in an attempt to get the nod is not going to help the cause of either.

Obama's approval rating is continually on the up suggesting at this point it is his race to lose.

Amerika

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... A republican win will again make us Prouder, Stronger, Better... after the current administration has taken us to a Twilight in America.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... A republican win will again make us Prouder, Stronger, Better... after the current administration has taken us to a Twilight in America.

can't tell if serious..

Overheal

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Ron+Paul&word2=Barack+Obama

F*cker.

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

can't tell if serious..

Dead serious!

cristoir

Amerika wrote: »

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... A republican win will again make us Prouder, Stronger, Better... after the current administration has taken us to a Twilight in America.

What exactly will the Republicans do that too make the US "Prouder, Stronger and Better? Assuming of course they win in 2012.

Amerika

cristoir wrote: »

What exactly will the Republicans do that too make the US "Prouder, Stronger and Better? Assuming of course they win in 2012.

Actually, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” was the name to the Reagan commercials now commonly called “Morning in America” (2004 political ads).

Although not quite a replay, this election will be paralleled to the Reagan vs Carter 1980 election. While the comparisons of Carter to Obama are scary, the comparison of Reagan to Romney are more subtle. I think Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to see the big picture, define the problem, focus on it in a positive manner and accomplish the goals of correcting them. Romney’s past accomplishments are similar to this narrative of Reagan. And Reagan did make our country prouder, stronger and better. I’ve always said the best indicator of how a person will act in the future is to look at how he has acted in the past, and Romney fits the bill. Unfortunately Barack Obama’s term as POTUS is also a sad affirmation of this.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” was the name to the Reagan commercials now commonly called “Morning in America” (2004 political ads).

Although not quite a replay, this election will be paralleled to the Reagan vs Carter 1980 election. I’ve always said the best indicator of how a person will act in the future is to look at how he has acted in the past, and Romney fits the bill. Unfortunately Barack Obama’s term as POTUS is also a sad affirmation of this.

Reagan began as a Democrat.:D

jank

And Romney is the classic case of a RINO.

So looks like moderate democrats are better than any republicans at this stage.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” was the name to the Reagan commercials now commonly called “Morning in America” (2004 political ads).

Although not quite a replay, this election will be paralleled to the Reagan vs Carter 1980 election. While the comparisons of Carter to Obama are scary, the comparison of Reagan to Romney are more subtle. I think Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to see the big picture, define the problem, focus on it in a positive manner and accomplish the goals of correcting them. Romney’s past accomplishments are similar to this narrative of Reagan. And Reagan did make our country prouder, stronger and better. I’ve always said the best indicator of how a person will act in the future is to look at how he has acted in the past, and Romney fits the bill. Unfortunately Barack Obama’s term as POTUS is also a sad affirmation of this.

Romney has spent the last five years running away from his record as governor of Massachusetts. Unlike Reagan, he has no clear governing philosophy. He is wooden and awkward and I wonder has he every taken any action in public which has not been vetted by at least three image consultants, even though he is obviously a smart guy. I honestly do not see any parallels between Reagan and Romney - at all.

timesnap

southsiderosie wrote: »

Unlike Reagan, he has no clear governing philosophy. He is wooden and awkward and I wonder has he every taken any action in public which has not been vetted by at least three image consultants, even though he is obviously a smart guy. I honestly do not see any parallels between Reagan and Romney - at all.

Their whole presidency would be remembered as ReagaNomics vs RomneyBotics.

glad i am not the only one who see's Romney as having zero charisma,perhaps it should not be relevant to the job but in the real world charisma gets a president a long way............ Reagan and Clinton, polar opposites thrived on not just their intellect but also a fierce amount of charm.
the GOP do not seem to want to win this election,rather they would prefer to regroup.

who was it said about winning elections that when all is said and done *Its the economy..... Stoopid*?
whoever it was hit the nail on the head imo.

southsiderosie

timesnap wrote: »

who was it said about winning elections that when all is said and done *Its the economy..... Stoopid*?
whoever it was hit the nail on the head imo.

James Carville, Clinton's main elections guru.

I think the unemployment rate is a better predictor of elections historically than most polling is.

randd1

To be fair to Romney, he's a lot better of a candidate than any of the other Republican candidates. I think if you look at his history in office, then its fair to say he's done a good job and that a lot of his current talk is more about getting votes from the dumb elements of the republican voters rather how he really feels. Unfortunately the most vocal republicans at the moment are the Tea Party, which makes every Republican look dumb (not to mention racist, moronic and completely insane at times), and he's going to need their votes to win so he has to play up to them.

I hope Obama wins, he seems the only guy at the moment with a grip of reality of the world outside America, if he had introduced his health care policy in any other country he'd be considered a saint and lets not forget he was ladled with a terrible situation after Bush.

Romney might win but I suspect long term Obama would be better for the US and the world.

At least we wont have the crazy Bachmann, who you get the impression could actually have started nuclear war if any country didn't subscribe to banning the theory of evolution or facts about global warming.

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... A republican win will again make us Prouder, Stronger, Better... after the current administration has taken us to a Twilight in America.

Bring back Bush. He did so much to elevate the standards.

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” was the name to the Reagan commercials now commonly called “Morning in America” (2004 political ads).

Although not quite a replay, this election will be paralleled to the Reagan vs Carter 1980 election. While the comparisons of Carter to Obama are scary, the comparison of Reagan to Romney are more subtle. I think Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to see the big picture, define the problem, focus on it in a positive manner and accomplish the goals of correcting them. Romney’s past accomplishments are similar to this narrative of Reagan. And Reagan did make our country prouder, stronger and better. I’ve always said the best indicator of how a person will act in the future is to look at how he has acted in the past, and Romney fits the bill. Unfortunately Barack Obama’s term as POTUS is also a sad affirmation of this.

Utter nonsense.

Amerika

jackiebaron wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

I guess we'll know one way or another in a little over 9 months.

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... A republican win will again make us Prouder, Stronger, Better... after the current administration has taken us to a Twilight in America.

Weren't 9 million jobs lost during the last Republican administration? Didn't the last Republican administration borrow more than the combined total of the previous 42 presidents?

Prouder, Stronger, Better? I wouldn't bet on it.

Amerika

Hmmm... Didn't we see a net increase of 3 million jobs over GW Bush's 8 years? And hasn’t the first stimulus package, which occurred under Bush (which I wasn’t happy about to be honest), been paid back in full with interest? And hasn’t this current democratic administration arleady borrowed more, in less than 3 years (with much more on the way mind you), than the combined total of the previous 43 presidents?

InTheTrees

Romney could hardly be more different than reagan.

Reagan was a charmer, he got on with people, and he came from a humble background but Romney? HE stutters and stumbles when he has to talk to "common" folk, he comes across as preachy and arrogant when he explains his policies because he's so out of touch. And he knows it, his campaign keeps the interviews to an absolute minimum.

Amerika

Yeah, what we need is a smooth talker... OH WAIT!!! :eek:

cristoir

More signs that the US economy is making a strong recovery:

The Nasdaq closed higher then it has since 2000: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208631-stock-market-reaches-highest-level-since-financial-crisis

US unemployment is in lowest in 3 years: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208485-economy-adds-243000-jobs-giving-boost-to-obama

242,000 jobs where added to the US economy in January alone.

Carcharodon

cristoir wrote: »

More signs that the US economy is making a strong recovery:

The Nasdaq closed higher then it has since 2000: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208631-stock-market-reaches-highest-level-since-financial-crisis

US unemployment is in lowest in 3 years: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208485-economy-adds-243000-jobs-giving-boost-to-obama

242,000 jobs where added to the US economy in January alone.

Republicans must be disgusted with this and I am not kidding.

Amerika

cristoir wrote: »

More signs that the US economy is making a strong recovery:

The Nasdaq closed higher then it has since 2000: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208631-stock-market-reaches-highest-level-since-financial-crisis

US unemployment is in lowest in 3 years: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208485-economy-adds-243000-jobs-giving-boost-to-obama

242,000 jobs where added to the US economy in January alone.

Perhaps things aren't as rosy as some might want you to believe. And to many at the bottom of the food chain... improvement just hasn't been seen.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

cristoir wrote: »

More signs that the US economy is making a strong recovery:

The Nasdaq closed higher then it has since 2000: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208631-stock-market-reaches-highest-level-since-financial-crisis

US unemployment is in lowest in 3 years: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/208485-economy-adds-243000-jobs-giving-boost-to-obama

242,000 jobs where added to the US economy in January alone.

Perhaps things aren't as rosy as some might want you to believe. And to many at the bottom of the food chain... improvement just hasn't been seen.

That's the attitude Amerika, great to see republicans install some confidence in the economy.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

That's the attitude Amerika, great to see republicans install some confidence in the economy.

Yes... how terrible of me not to ignore the extremely alarming figure of 1.2 million people who ran out of unemployment compensation and have given up looking for jobs - which drops them off the unemployment figures, and instead just relish in the suspect decreased unemployment rate during an election year.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Yes... how terrible of me not to ignore the extremely alarming figure of 1.2 million people who ran out of unemployment compensation and have given up looking for jobs - which drops them off the unemployment figures, and instead just relish in the suspect decreased unemployment rate during an election year.

Pfft.

Whatever the official unemployment number is, political opponents can always point to the more concise number and crow about how much higher it is.

but its always been that way. For some reason the United States "official" unemployment number (U3) does not take into account the long term unemployed.

But it isnt a secret either, you can find the other numbers at the bureau of labor statistics. This from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:[80]

• U1:[81] Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
• U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
• U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2]
• U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
• U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
• U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

InTheTrees

...and unemployment is dropping. However you look at it.

Most US economic indicators are Up. Its going to be amusing to hear the 1% campaigning on how everything is deteriorating.

ed2hands

Here's an interesting non-government site for U.S. figures:
http://www.shadowstats.com/


Some backround on the site from Paul Craig Roberts:


"If you have any money and you want to understand the lies that “your” government tells you with statistics, subscribe to John Williams shadowstats.com.
John Williams is the best and most utterly truthful statistician that we the people have.
The charts below come from John Williams Hyperinflation Report, January 25, 2012. The commentary is supplied by me.
Here is the chart of real average weekly earnings deflated by the US government’s own measure of inflation, which as I pointed out in my recent column, Economics Lesson 1, understates true inflation."
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/04/the-real-economic-picture/

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its going to be amusing to hear the 1% campaigning on how everything is deteriorating.

The 1% might be campaigning on it, but it seems the majority of the 99% are living it.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Yes... how terrible of me not to ignore the extremely alarming figure of 1.2 million people who ran out of unemployment compensation and have given up looking for jobs - which drops them off the unemployment figures, and instead just relish in the suspect decreased unemployment rate during an election year.

Amerika, unemployment insurance policies are set at a state level, not a federal level. The federal government only supplements state policies, and for long-term workers, this has to be at the behest of the state. Ironically, it is Republican legislators at the state level who have often voted to block extension of unemployment insurance, and it is GOP lawmakers in Congress who have repeatedly tried to block extension of unemployment benefits, both directly, or by trying to tie these extensions to maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans

That aside, the way that unemployment figures in the US are calculated have always been ridiculous - social welfare groups have been screaming about this for years. The relevant statistic here is really workforce participation rates for the able-bodied.

timesnap

So which party has historically shown itself to be best for the American economy?

Per Capita Income1
President Outgoing Incoming Percent Change
Bush 43 $25,036 (2005) 25,200 (2001) -0.1%
Clinton 42 $25,331 (2000) 20,989 (1993) 20.7%
Bush 41 $20,245 (1992) 21,370 (1989) -5.3%
Reagan 40 $20,808 (1988) 17,386 (1981) 19.7%


Poverty2
President Outgoing Incoming
Bush 43 5.2% (2006) 4.8% (2001)
Clinton 42 4.5% (2000) 6.2% (1993)
Bush 41 6.1% (1992) 4.9% (1989)
Reagan 40 5.2% (1988) 4.9% (1981)


Gross Federal Debt3
Millions of Dollars
President Outgoing Incoming % Change
Bush 43 $9,317,866 (2007 -e) 5,769,881 (2001) 61.5%
Clinton 42 $5,628,700 (2000) 4,351,044 (1993) 29.4%
Bush 41 $4,001,787 (1992) 2,867,800 (1989) 39.5%
Reagan 40 $2,601,104 (1988) 994,828 (1981) 161.5%


Federal Debt As % of GDP3
See Chart
President Outgoing Incoming
Bush 43 70.2% (2007 -e) 57.5% (2001)
Clinton 42 58.0% (2000) 64.1% (1993)
Bush 41 60.6% (1992) 53.1% (1989)
Reagan 40 51.9% (1988) 32.5% (1981)

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_prez_economic_comparison.htm

or even more horror stories about Republicans rule here:

http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Amerika, unemployment insurance policies are set at a state level, not a federal level. The federal government only supplements state policies, and for long-term workers, this has to be at the behest of the state. Ironically, it is Republican legislators at the state level who have often voted to block extension of unemployment insurance, and it is GOP lawmakers in Congress who have repeatedly tried to block extension of unemployment benefits, both directly, or by trying to tie these extensions to maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

So you agree with me?

We should be finding ways to increase jobs in order to reduce the unemployment rate, not rely on tricks that artificially deflate the unemployment rate figures in an election year to an unknowing electorate.

Personally I wouldn’t have had a problem with the original article if they had included this information in order to balance out the reports of an improved jobs rate. I’m glad if the jobs market is improving. Just saying that I, and many around me, don’t see it. And it looks to me that much of the media appears once again to be in the Obama reelection tank, and will again pick ideology over the obligations of their profession.

And I know quite a few people currently on unemployment. Many are counting on receiving up to 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, and are not even looking for work because of it. I often tell them that their actions cause the states to impose mandates on employers to add more into the state unemployment fund, taking away resources from the employers that could be given to jobs, which leads to even more unemployment. But most, if not all of those counting on their unemployment compensation as an extended holiday, don’t care. Perhaps if as you noted "GOP lawmakers in Congress who have repeatedly tried to block extension of unemployment benefits," it would keep more resources in the hands of the employers to provide jobs, force people to look for jobs, and have fewer leeches on our society. Now this might not be a representation of the majority on unemployment... but their sure seems to enough of them to be worried about. And why did the gov't stop requiring, from those collecting unemployment, proof they were activily looking for work in order to continue to receive unemployment compensation... might I ask you?

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

So you agree with me?

We should be finding ways to increase jobs in order to reduce the unemployment rate, not rely on tricks that artificially deflate the unemployment rate figures in an election year to an unknowing electorate.

Personally I wouldn’t have had a problem with the original article if they had included this information in order to balance out the reports of an improved jobs rate. I’m glad if the jobs market is improving. Just saying that I, and many around me, don’t see it. And it looks to me that much of the media appears once again to be in the Obama reelection tank, and will again pick ideology over the obligations of their profession.

And I know quite a few people currently on unemployment. Many are counting on receiving up to 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, and are not even looking for work because of it. I often tell them that their actions cause the states to impose mandates on employers to add more into the state unemployment fund, taking away resources from the employers that could be given to jobs, which leads to even more unemployment. But most, if not all of those counting on their unemployment compensation as an extended holiday, don’t care. Perhaps if as you noted "GOP lawmakers in Congress who have repeatedly tried to block extension of unemployment benefits," it would keep more resources in the hands of the employers to provide jobs, force people to look for jobs, and have fewer leeches on our society. Now this might not be a representation of the majority on unemployment... but their sure seems to enough of them to be worried about. And why did the gov't stop requiring, from those collecting unemployment, proof they were activily looking for work in order to continue to receive unemployment compensation... might I ask you?

Amerika, I'm aware of what camp your boot is in but you speak the truth about these ridiculously manipulated figures. This massaging of the figures is nothing new. I think It started during Clinton's tenure. You're not undemployed if you have given up hope and if you are underemployed then you aren't listed. The real figure of unemployment in the US is closer to 17/18....maybe even 20%. It's a mess.

Your assertion about people on unemployment being leeches is misguided, however. If they have paid into an INSURANCE policy then surely they are entitled to every dime that they are entitled to. This isn't blood sucking. It isn't drinking from the state teat. It's YOUR money...much like Social Security. If you have such a problem with these insurance programs then you should be clamouring to have contributions returned to the payee and I'm sure that you would have no problem with those who would prefer to have such a system independently kept in place.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

not rely on tricks that artificially deflate the unemployment rate figures in an election year to an unknowing electorate.

ABsolute nonsense.

Its a purely american thing and republicans do it as well. And the news media, both left and right also do it, for some reason the "Official" unemployment rate is the U3 number. Which drops the long term unemployed and only counts those still receiving benefits.

• U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2]

And with about two minutes research you can find the real numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they're not hidden, its not a secret, you're not being manipulated:

From Wiki:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:[86]

• U1:[87] Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
• U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
• U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2]
• U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
• U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
• U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

Amerika

jackiebaron wrote: »

Your assertion about people on unemployment being leeches is misguided, however. If they have paid into an INSURANCE policy then surely they are entitled to every dime that they are entitled to. This isn't blood sucking. It isn't drinking from the state teat. It's YOUR money...much like Social Security.

No it isn't. Much of my assertion is first hand knowledge. And it is the employer, not the employee (except for a tiny percentage - SUI), that pays for unemployment insurance.

If you have such a problem with these insurance programs then you should be clamouring to have contributions returned to the payee and I'm sure that you would have no problem with those who would prefer to have such a system independently kept in place.

We try to have unemployment made reasonable, to no avail. The state is seemingly prosecutor, judge and jury in the matter. Paying as much as 9% (which may or may not be utliized) of labor costs into the unemployment compensatition fund hurts many businesses. And as an employer, try denying unemployment benefits for an employee terminated for just cause. The employer can have numerous records justifying termination, but still goes through what seems to be the spanish inquisition to prove it to the level the state deems worthy - even in an "at will" state.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

And with about two minutes research you can find the real numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they're not hidden, its not a secret, you're not being manipulated:

And it's not being reported adequately by the media! You had to go look for it to find the true unemployment numbers. All the media has been telling the people for the most part is 8.X% unemployment rate… usually no mention of the real unemployment numbers. How many people don’t even know this factor even exists if they just get their information from the mainstream media. Don’t you think this is important? Don’t you think the numbers of people who have given up on finding a job, to keep the unemployment rate in perspective, is important? Do you think you should have to go try and find this information yourself?