DiscussMormonism.com

I've been looking over some recent posts in here regarding the Obama recovery including some utterly fantastic excremental twaddle from Mr. Graham, in which comparisons are made between Obama's "recovery" and the Reagan years and in which Red Kevin very disingenuously cherry picks the fist several years of Regan's presidency as his time frame - and as the massive second Carter recession was just beginning to respond to rational, economically literate policy - of his analysis of unemployment comparison's between the two President's terms.

Lacking any substantive understanding of economics, or the basic intellectual honesty to present a much broader, through perspective of the actual empirical data that can be brought to bear on this subject, the picture he paints is, of necessity, deeply distorted if not unambiguously and willfully deceptive (and indeed, Graham and a few others here have been engaging in statistical and historical fraud regarding the Reagan years for a very long time without having done their homework (which, they kinda have to do, as socialism and liberty do not a happy couple make).

Here, for your consideration, is just a small but salient smattering of the daunting task faced by any leftist who attempts to sally forth out of his fortress of ideological purity into the real world:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/06/case-c ... wo-charts/

Case closed: The Reagan Recovery vs. the Obama Recovery in two charts
James Pethokoukis | June 27, 2012, 9:49 am

In a new book on the economic performance of the twelve U.S. presidents since World War Two, the author ranks Ronald Reagan 8th and Barack Obama 9th.

Now, I wrote yesterday why I think the book’s rating system is flawed overall, and specifically why Reagan deserves a much higher ranking — if not the top ranking.

But it is also extremely weird that Reagan and Obama are right next to each other. And I think these next two charts demonstrate why it is so strange.

First, here is cumulative GDP growth during the first three years of the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery, using the dating system of the National Bureau of Economic Research and optimistically assuming 2% growth for the second quarter of this year:



Big advantage to Reagan. Second, here is a comparison of net new nonfarm payrolls created over the first 35 months of the two recoveries, adjusted for the growth in population since the 1980s:



Massive advantage to Reagan.

Now the book looks at the entire presidencies of the twelve, and perhaps Obama’s next four years, if he gets a second term, would be better than his first four. But Reagan’s second term saw average GDP growth of 3.6% and the unemployment rate fall to 5.3%. That’s a high hurdle for Obama to clear.