Not Exactly Below Eight Percent

ATRF ^ | 2012-07-06 | Jeremy Sawyer

[92nina]

When the massive ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) stimulus bill was being debated, President Obama’s economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein infamously authored a report in which they predicted that passing the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below eight percent. The events of the past three and a half years have proven that estimate to have been far from correct. What Romer and Bernstein were forecasting was something akin to another Reagan recovery, a phenomenon that is unlikely to occur as long as the current administration continues to meddle in the economy.

The recession of the early 1980s was one of the worst in the history of the United States, and American workers suffered the brunt of its effects. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent in December 1982, the highest mark since the Great Depression. However, the swift recovery from this contraction of the economy provided relief to workers. Under President Reagan, unemployment declined to 7.2 percent in June 1984 and continued falling.

Contrary to the Obama administration’s claims, “Recovery Summer” never took place. During the summer of 2010, when infrastructure spending was supposed to lead to a decline in joblessness, unemployment never dropped below the astronomically high figure of 9.4 percent. Hopes for a quick turnaround were dashed by the reality of business uncertainty. The unemployment rate has been above 8 percent since February 2009 – 40 consecutive months. For virtually the entirety of Obama’s presidency, unemployment has been above a level that it did not reach even once between the beginning of 1984 and President Obama’s inauguration. In contrast to the sharp downward trend in unemployment that occurred during the Reagan recovery, the figures from the Obama administration show a leveling off of unemployment at a level that is exceedingly high from a historical perspective. Unfortunately, the data do not appear to be getting any better. May saw an increase in the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent.

While almost all Americans are suffering during the floundering recovery, few groups are impacted more by the failure of the economy to rebound than young Americans. Workers new to the job market were a key part of the Reagan recovery. Under President Reagan, the unemployment rate for workers between the ages of 16 and 19 dropped from 24.1 percent to 17.5 percent and continued to remain low.

The Obama recovery, however, has been a different story entirely. One might expect the unemployment rate among young workers to be significantly lower under President Obama than it was under President Reagan, seeing as many more teenage Americans are now attending college full-time and therefore not part of the workforce. However, the opposite effect has occurred. Youth unemployment reached 27 percent in 2009 and 2010 – the highest figure since the BLS began recording the statistic in 1948. The youth unemployment rate has failed to decline meaningfully; in May the figure was 24.6 percent, which is higher than it ever was during the Reagan presidency.

As the data make clear, there is a massive gap between the unemployment rates under President Reagan and those that have been recorded during the administration of President Obama. When the Obama recovery is contrasted with the recovery overseen by President Reagan, it is hard to avoid judging it a failure.

This content is provided by Americans for Tax Reform Foundation.

Read more: http://atr.org/exactly-below-eight-percent-a7024#ixzz1zr7s8lWk

[92nina]

Despite the Obama administration’s predictions, unemployment in the Obama era remains at unprecedented levels that are much higher than those under Reagan.

Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at Digg and at Reddit and in Stumbleupon and Delicious

[Dilbert San Diego]

Can I ask a stupid question? Did any good come from the Stimulus/Porkulus?

I understand that it failed in its stated goal of keeping unemployment under 8%, but, did it do any good at all, even if it fell short of the goal? Was all that money just wasted????

[cuban leaf]

They also calculate it differently under Obama. Every administration has slightly modified the way unemployment levels are calculated. We’ve been through quite a few of them since Reagan.

[lacrew]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The lowest unemployment rate during Barry’s presidency:

The first day.

Jan 2009 rate was 7.8%.

Barry’s best day, btw, was Bush’s worse day. There has yet to be a single day of O’s presidency, with a better UE rate than any single day of the Bush presidency.

[lacrew]

“Was all that money just wasted????”

Yes.

When local governments borrow money, they sell a General Obligation Bond, with a payback schedule. There is a requirement that the asset purchased with the GO bond last at least as long as the bond payback schedule (usually 10-20 years).

When Barry borrows a quarter billion dollars to ‘pay teachers and policemen’, you know from day one that the money has been wasted, according to rules that governments themselves have to use.

You can’t borrow money for operating expenses. Its stupid.

[going hot]

Was all that money just wasted????

Not according to those who got a piece of that pie!

[csmusaret]

I don’t know if it was ALL wasted or not, but I do know that Obama is still asking for more money for the same roads, bridges, policemen, firefighters, and teachers.

[jeffc]

Can you just imagine how this would be covered by the “news” media if a Repub were President?

[yuleeyahoo]

There is nothing wrong with the economy that expensive government programs can’t prolong.

[Newtoidaho]

I think I saw a small parking lot repaved in Garden Valley Idaho that had one of those signs nearby, and maybe a couple of sidewalks in Montana. But that’s not much for $100 billion.