Home › Blogs › SteveB's blog ›

Democratic Policies Make a Bad Economy Worse

Submitted by SteveB on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 15:18

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican

Take a good look at this graph: cboprojections.jpgThose lines show the Congressional Budget office's latest projections: A historic deficit made worse by Obama's budget. From the CBO's report:

Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Proposed changes in spending programs would add $1.7 trillion (excluding debt service) to outlays over the next 10 years. Interest costs associated with greater borrowing would add another $1.0 trillion to deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline. Debt held by the public would rise, from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 57 percent in 2009 and then to 82 percent of GDP by 2019 (compared with 56 percent of GDP in that year under baseline assumptions).

"I realize there are those who say these plans are too ambitious to enact," Obama said in his weekend address. "To that I say that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next president or the next generation — I came here to solve them." Isn't creating $9.3 trillion in deficits " passing on our problems"?

So what we have is a situation made exponentially worse by the enacting of Democratic policies of raising taxes and increasing spending. Obama ran on change, and change we have gotten. Change for the worse.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

"deficit" is not the same as "economy"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 15:49.

Your headline says "economy", your graph is about the deficit. You make no connection between the two.

Robert H. Frank, an economist at Cornell, is a visiting faculty member at the Stern School of Business at New York University, had an very interesting piece about deficits in the NYT today.

Now, he doesn't go as far as Dick Cheney and say "deficits don't matter".  But let me summarize what he does say.

During the Bush Administration deficits increased the national debt by $5 trillion. Most of that, borrowed from China, financed tax cuts for the wealthy, who spent it on things like McMansions.  Much of the interest we’ll pay on debt incurred during the Bush years is thus money down the drain.

But borrowing for productive purposes - like road maintaince - doesn't make us poorer.  More importantly:

The consensus is that short-run deficits help end recessions, and that whether long-run deficits matter depends entirely on how government spends the borrowed money. If failure to borrow meant forgoing productive investments, bigger long-run deficits would actually be better than smaller ones. In 1929, President Herbert Hoover thought that the best response to a collapsing economy was to balance the federal budget. With incomes and tax receipts falling sharply, that meant cutting federal spending. But as almost all economists now recognize, President Hoover was profoundly mistaken.

So, SteveB, can you actually deliver on the promise of your headline and show a credible economic argument for why Obama's policies are going to make a bad economy worse?

 

Nando...here is my argument

Submitted by SteveB on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 17:35.

I am an unashamed deficit hawk. This is why. Per the CBO:

Because fiscal stimulus boosts aggregate demand through increases in government spending or reductions in taxes, such policies raise budget deficits in the short term. That effect is desirable for fiscal stimulus because it reflects the increased demand being delivered to the economy. Contemporaneous changes elsewhere in the budget—tax increases or cuts in spending—designed to offset those short-term effects on deficits would serve to reduce or eliminate the stimulative effect.

Those higher deficits, however, tend to slow economic growth in the long term if they are allowed to persist, because they tend to reduce capital accumulation and the upward trend in the economy’s capacity to produce. Given the large projected shortfall of federal revenues relative to outlays in the medium term and long term, any policy designed to provide short-term fiscal stimulus will have to reckon with long-term consequences. Increases in spending and decreases in taxes that are intended to be temporary may be difficult to reverse later. Moreover, even if taxes and noninterest spending return to their baseline levels, the additional debt service from the period of larger deficits will—unless offset by greater fiscal discipline later—crowd out some amount of future growth.

In addition to their negative long-term effects, policies that substantially worsen the fiscal outlook can have negative short-term effects as well. The nation currently benefits greatly from the fact that investors worldwide tend to flee to U.S. Treasury securities in times of trouble. That tendency provides an important advantage in times of crisis, helping to increase liquidity and decrease interest rates. If investors lost confidence in the government’s debt as a safe haven because of deterioration in the long-term fiscal outlook, the U.S. economy would lose that advantage, perhaps permanently.

 

Two assumptions in there

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 17:45.

Two assumptionsin there: (1) Obama will not peruse deficit reduction after the economy recovers. However, he has said that he will. (2)  foreign investors will go somewhere else. I suppose they will, eventually - if Obama doesn't follow through on (1).

Were you an unashamed deficit hawk during the Bush years? Who did you vote for in 2004? How about the congressional elections in 2006?

Unashamed deficit hawk

Submitted by SteveB on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 18:49.

I take your point in that if Obama follows through on deficit reduction my warnings are null and void. But I feel that once large spending programs are initiated a Democratically controlled congress will not be able to stop itself. Hopefully I am wrong, but I have my doubts.

As for my deficit hawk credentials...I held my nose and voted for Bush as many conservatives did. There wasn't much of an option. As for congressional elections, I live in Mass, I am lucky if there is a conservative even on the ballot. I do my best.

So in 2004 when Kerry slammed Bush for the budget deficits

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 21:16.

So in 2004 when Kerry slammed Bush for the budget deficits, you voted for Bush?

You are an unashamed deficit hawk....only when there is a Democrat in the White House?

You are utterly opposed to budget deficits - even when they are for a necessary reason (Obama) - unless they are for an unnecessary reason ( deficits are OK when the Republicans control all three branches of government)?

Frying pan is better than the fire

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 21:48.

Based on the budgets approved by the Reid-PeIosi Congress and proposed by President Obama, I think we ought to relieve ourselves of the notion that the budget deficit has any signifcance to the contemporary Democratic party once they have used the issue to defeat Republicans in an election.

BTW, the '07 budget deficit was entirely Iraq generated.  Not the '08 or '09 budgets.

NRN, if the number of zeroes on the Obama budgets was one fewer I'd still think they were excessive.  But OK, we'll get some comeback that we ought to spend today and save tommorrow. That's like entering a 12 step program by trying to drink a keg by oneself first.

BTW, I want to congratulate Paul Krugman, who is off the Kool Aid. Guess he must have read this post and rethought things.

NRN, if I have to choose between your economic wisdom or Krugman's, I'm with Krugman

Yes, I too think

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 22:12.

Yes, I too think that Krugman hangs on your every word.

BTW, the '07 budget deficit was entirely Iraq generated.

The Bush Administration drummed up and conducted the war, so why is it OK with you that they never made any provisions for paying for it? Other than, of course, the accounting tricks they used to just move hundreds of billions in spend off the books, knowing that the next administration would have to come in and clean up the mess.

George Bush's budget

An Election Year Farce

Feb 5th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DCFrom The Economist print edition

Nice glossy brochure, not much fiscal responsibility

ELEVEN days after Congress at last approved a budget for the current fiscal year, which began in October, George Bush presented Congress with a $2.4 trillion budget for the next. Think of it as a campaign brochure, complete with glossy pictures of the president bringing relief to the elderly, restoring the environment and exhorting the young. As a way to unveil the three main themes of Mr Bush's re-election strategy—fighting the war on terror, protecting the “homeland” and getting the credit for a recovering economy—the brochure is a tour de force. As an exercise in fiscal responsibility, it is a charade.

For once, the administration has not fiddled the books by relying on unrealistically high growth rates in the coming years; but it has relied on other fibs. For a start, the budget does not factor in the future costs of keeping soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan: even Mr Bush's own budget director says costs could be as much as $50 billion for Iraq alone in 2005. Then the usual implausible savings are found from “waste, fraud and abuse”. Third, all the president's cuts are to fall on the one-fifth of the total budget that counts as domestic discretionary spending—hardly likely to happen in an election year.

Mr Bush's most culpable failing lies in his refusal to think beyond the 2009 horizon. Take, first, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which Mr Bush wants to make permanent at a ten-year cost, when other new proposals for tax-free savings schemes are added in, of $1.25 trillion. The cuts may well have provided a welcome economic stimulus at a time when confidence was knocked by recession and terrorist attack. But after 2009, these cuts will equal three-quarters of the total deficit, even by the administration's own numbers.

 

 

Bush's record is going to look miserly

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 23:01.

next to Obama's.

Every month there's another trillion dollar initiative.  Acquaint yourself with this term. 

The only way the Obama budgets even get near the worst of Bush's deficit numbers is; a) he raised taxes on folks making over $250,000/year; and b) because of inflation that's what everyone is earning.

 

Wow. Taxes to pay for spending.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 23:29.

Wow. Taxes to pay for spending. What a novel concept - after eight years of just spending. Pointless,wasteful spending at that.

LOL

Submitted by gunthestops on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 17:09.

Hey dummy---The Iraq war spending was not included in the deficits under Bush---it was put on the national debt, just like a lot of other spending that was not counted in the deficits--so if you took the 5 trillion dollars that Bush added to the national debt and put it where it should have been the graph would look a lot differnt--some of you guys should stick to politics because economics is way over your heads---lol

Unashamed ignorance

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 06:18.

Doesn't know the difference between GDP and Deficit.

Knows the difference between Dems and Reps: when Dems in charge its all about deficits even those aspects due to tax cuts. When Reps in charge its all about tax cuts and "deficits don't matter."

This is part of the problem for conservatives today: we're only about tactics and talking points. We don't have credible ideas, policies or solutions.

The Obama Administration is going to go down in flames on the banking crisis, yet conservatives, singing from the same hymnal we've used for the last 20 years, have no credible policy alternatives to offer. We're unprepared to help ourselves or our country during this crisis. It is a resounding shame.

Perhaps no Obama recovery?

Submitted by TomGrey on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 18:45.

Obama's stimulus/ Porkulus looks more like Japan's post-89 stimulus than any other model.

For Japan, the 90s is ... "the Lost Decade".  Big gov't debt and programs FAILED in Japan.  Because Obama's programs will mostly be politically directed, by DC lobbyists rather than free consumers ('the market'), they are certain to include waste & corruption & inefficiency, relative to a policy of Tax Cuts.

There won't be a recovery until there is a set of Tax Cuts 'big enough' (it's true I don't know how big that will have to be).  The 2008 Tax Rebates were successful at delaying the meltdown, but were too little to save the economy.

On Obama's promise to pursue deficit reduction: "However, he has said that he will."

That's about as likely as his promise to close Guantanomo within 100 days.  Or even a year, after yet another study. Obama weasel mouth.  Is there any promise he'll keep?  Oh yeah, he'll have full support for abortion on demand and to fund abortion throughout Africa.

I was against Bush's expansion of Medicare; and against most other gov't programs he supported.  I was in favor of Op. Iraqi Freedom -- but reconstruction should have been done thru Iraqi municipal bonds that the US would buy, and put on an open market, with local Iraqi politicians promising to repay the money they borrow BUT also having control over how to spend it.

Bush was terrible on spending -- which is one reason conservatives weren't so happy with him.  And McCain ain't much better, maybe even worse on spending -- but Kerry was certainly worse in 2004, and Obama far far worse in 2008.

The American voters have to stop voting for "free" gov't money, and support politicians who promise to stop the spending.

How did the $285 billion 2005 Highway Construction program work out?  Why didn't it fix most of the high priority problems?  If it didn't work, why would you or anybody think Obama's will -- he can't even find advisors who aren't Tax Cheats.  (If it DID work, why are there still so many infrastructure problems...)

 

(It's true that SteveB's CBO graph is on the deficit, and he doesn't clearly relate it to the full economy.  But it's a good graph.)

We are behind 2.2 trillion

Submitted by In between on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 18:58.

We are behind 2.2 trillion dollars on the infrastructure.

2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure 

Can you explain why the "lost decade" comparision is apt

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 21:22.

Can you explain why the "lost decade" comparison is apt when (1) Japan never entered a recession; (2) Japan's GDP never fell below its peak; and (3) unemployment never went above 5.5%.

It is a facile comparision may be people who want to cherry pick from it to support a position otherwise unsupported by the real world.

AWAY, YE LOON! FLY TO YOUR FOREST OF FANTASY!

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 12:06.

nay, if you must understand, do the words 100-year-mortgage mean anything to you?

I dont' have the patience to explain the applicability, other than tos ay that Japan didn't take downt he entire world economy.

Read Calculated Risk, and you shall understand.

Until then, enjoy your straightjacket of singing "I can't hear you"

well, this will make things peachy keen

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 19:03.

President Barack Obama said he believes the global financial system remains at risk of implosion with the failure of Citigroup or AIG, touching off “an even more destructive recession and potentially depression.” His remarks came in a “60 Minutes” interview in which he was pressed by an incredulous Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.“You're sitting here. And you're— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asks at one point.“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft says. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20339.html

 

nothing to do with . . .

Submitted by cr on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 12:15.

Obama, is definitely not making the transition from campaigning and wanting to be liked, and governing and being respectfull. That needs to change, but

it's off topic. Unfortunetly, as much as AIG and other firms should be stuffed down a hole, he might be right about not doing it yet.

Once again..

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 17:04.

...Politico goes out of its way to slam the Administration.  It has become the FOX News of the Web-based news organizations.

They cherry-pick quotes, they take things out of context, and still claim to be middle-of-the-road.

Kroft made a stupid remark, after conducting a lame interview, and THAT is what Politico picks as its lede.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

As to the main point, please explain the near-600 point rise in the DOW today?

If we have a stabilizing of Energy prices, a resurgence in the Construction industry, a surge in new and existing home sales, a 20% or more rise in the DOW in a short time, a new feeling that the Financial Industry and the Administration are going to cooperate and bring the US Financials roaring back, and all these doom-and-gloom long-term CBO figures will heve to be readjusted.

 

Hey.... WAIT A MINUTE!!!

ALL THESE HAPPENED IN JUST THE PAST TEN DAYS!!!

It seems to me the GOP and Conservatives have been forced by Obama's wily moves to go to the Big Political Casino and place their bets on failure.  Failure of Obama and his Administration, and therefore the failure of America.

The only way the GOP wins now is if all of Obama's measures fail, the Economy tailspins out-of-control, America is thrust into deep, long-lasting failure, and they can then gleefully point the finger and ask for Americans to give them a chance to correct things in 2010.

What's happened now is they have almost lost the first spin on the wheel, and now they will have to put up more capital and go double-or-nothing.

Just remember America has beaten all those that have placed their bets against her, and I believe Obama will contiinue that tradition. 

It feels good to be on the side of optimism, positive growth, a yes-we-can attitude, and to carry forward a strong, confident belief that we WILL overcome this, and make a better America and a better world.

Ironman would say

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 19:50.

As to the main point, please explain the near-600 point rise in the DOW today?

Well, if we follow Ironman's logic, it is a massive vote of confidence in Geitner.

If we adhere to real world logic, we say "don't know, don't care, don't follow it". Afterall, after what we've seen over the past year, where is the evidence that the market knows anything about anything?

 

well, since you asked.....

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 20:09.

Geithner didn't hurt. Frankly, it does help to have a functioning Treasury Secretary, Be sure to remind the President between his appearances on late night talk shows and ESPN.

Today's rally started on the other side of the globe with major upward moves on the NKK and the HS.

  Nikkei 225  8,215.53 +269.57  +3.39%
 
Hang Seng 13,447.42 +613.91 +4.78%

This was as of 0700 EDT

Now why did this happen, which created momentum on the Euro markets as well?

Well, maybe this caused world financiers to breath a sign of relief

Official says China to continue buying US debt

Chinese central bank official says country to continue buying US government debt 

The moment Beijing decides to do something else with their money there will be nothing Mr. Geithner will be able to do to stop a rather bloody selloff.

But that's ok , NRN, we'll be counting on Premier Wen to buy about $8 trillion of our bonds in the next five years. And this is the "reality-based" economic strategy, right?

Well, since you answered

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 21:05.

What's your alternate "reality-based" economic plan?  The usual "Tax cuts to investors"?

Wen knows that in the current global bond environment, his country has precious few choices. 

Plus, he is collecting close to 300B a year in US dollars from his trade surplus, he needs to do something with that cash, and when the US Economy comes back, those bond holdings are going to make his yuan more stable too.

not really, not with the inflation, no.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 08:39.

he's just losing money, and has nothing to do other than hope the US economy comes back, or that china can be self sufficient.

So in Ironman's World

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 21:22.

When the markets go down, it is a vote of no confidence in Geitner, when the markets go up, it is a vote of confidence in the Chinese Premier.

It's not Ironman's World

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 04:31.

We are going to be in Premier Wen's world.  We will just be living in it. And the Obama economic agenda will only ensure this occurs.

That's ok, I'm sure that skateboard park in Pawtucket, RI was absolutely essential to our survival as a free nation.

Ironman, you're being patently ridiculous.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 08:38.

i know a finance guy -- he knows of seven fuckign different ways to game the Geithner plan. that's why the banks rallied hard, and why we need to go find nemo (https://self-evident.org/?p=502).

geez, when you're stupider than a bot... is your brain up your butt, or are you just really, really this ignorant of possiblities? (honest question, if put a bit crudely).

Rally does not mean what you think it does, I suspect, in an environment where the dollar is being rapidly inflated.

And the rally on the other side of the world could have just as easily been speculation on the Geithner plan, which I find likely, considering the state of the broader based developing markets statistics, which should be MUCH MUCH less influenced by Chinese debts (20% down in one day if you were shorting. owch!!)

Complete idiocy

Submitted by GWMustGo on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 19:40.

Let me tell you about the complete idiocy of the above post...

Imagine your parents give your big brother a car.  Your brother drives if for a few years. He abuses the car, never does any maintenace, lets everything from the tires to headlights go to pot, and basically just beats the shit out of it.  He then gives it to you.

Unlike your brother, you understand that things like cars need upkeep.  So, you put money into a tune-up, tires, needed repairs, 2 cases of Febreeze (don't ask what that smell was or where it came from), inspection and restoration of registration (your brother, not being a fan of fancy things called "laws", let it lapse).  This costs a bit a money...

Of course, when you compare your car budget and expenditures with your brother's, you've spent quite a bit more.  But it was necessary to make the car safe and reliable.

For those of you too slow to have figured this out already, try replacing "car" with "economy", "big brother" with GW (pun intended), and "you" with President Obama.

Now, re-read reeeaaaaallll carefully and even StevieB might understand.

now, let's really do the analogy right

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 20:20.

after getting the deferred maintainance done, he then decides to get the car detailed every week, buys a lot of expensive and unnecessary aftermarket options,  adds some chrome at the body shop, and spends money on hiring some buddies who had his back before to drive the car to and from the various fix-up joints. And since his buds expect to be "taken care of", the car can never be deemed "fixed", as there's always some other mod they can think up for the car so they can stay busy.

Our genius puts almost the whole tab on his Visa, and takes out cash advances to pay for his posse.

When the bill collectors repo the car and make him tear up his credit cards, he then blames the older brother for leaving him with a jalopy.

That's the better analogy

You know.....

Submitted by GWMustGo on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 21:13.

I really, really have a hard time giving any credibility to the bozos who supported a President who decided to cut taxes AND raise spending AND fight two wars (one outrageously ill-advised, ill-conceived, and an outright disaster), and then claim to preach conservatism.

I have a lot of respect for True Conservatives.  I don't believe their approach on many things is the proper approach, but I have respect for their belief, and how they try to improve things.

But there is absolutely no respect for GW and his ilk, that bastardized the word "conservative", twisting it into a thing not recognizable.  And the folks who supported him (especially those who voted for him TWICE) - they share that same disrespect.  And, as stated above, they have lost all credibility.

So, unless you railed against W's horrendous fiscal acts, his bastardization of "conservatism", and his destruction of the ecomony, you should just STFU and let the adults fix what the spoiled kids broke.

"Adults"

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 04:36.

You mean the economic brain trust of Rahm Emanuel, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and David Axelrod?

Get back to me when Geithner has some staff, Oh, sorry, Teleprompter man is too busy insulting people on talk shows to read resumes, I suppose.

your words aren't fit for rebuttal.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 08:42.

as they've been rebutted before, and by this point i'm sure you're just lying to protect your own party. why you'd do that? i'm at a loss... but it appears to be there.

You must be talkin

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 09:50.

.. bout the EARMARKS, right?  Those dreaded PORKULUS EARMARKS, right?

You know this, but I'll refresh your memory since the GOP has been so succesful at distracting your teeny mind with shiny objects.  In the example above ( my compliments, GWMustGo, EXCELLENT exmaple) there is abudget for getting the car back on the road, registered, insured and safe. 

The add-ons to this car, rather than being Ironman's chrome rims and expensive aftermarket options, amount to a dangling air freshener and a set of new mats in relation to the cost of the rest of the repairs.

But that "expensive" air freshener and mats means we better throw our bodies in front of the car, and not allow it to be pushed to the shop!  And maybe THEN our wives will take us back for the frugal, thrifty little guys we are.

Ouch!

Submitted by Joe C. on Fri, 03/27/2009 - 07:13.

After I saw this post, I cringed at the thought of reading the delusional comments of the revisionist leftists -- and was not disappointed. Just painful. I actually felt brain cells dying as I read them.

Same old--same old

Submitted by gunthestops on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 08:07.

Republicans set the house on fire, and now they are running around yelling about all the water we have to use to put it out. -------I have to laugh when I hear the republicans talk about Obama doing too much or making media appearences---republicans are just not used to having someone in a leadership position that can multi task and speak coherently----lol

The Past Speaks for Itself

Submitted by KennethBer1 on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 20:36.

As much as I agree with you that Obama’s “all-tax and nothing else” policies will not do much to help stabilize our floundering economy, I will have to disagree with you on the point that Democratic economic policies always lead to economic stagnation.

 

It is well known that during Clinton’s term, the United States had one of the largest recorded economic expansions in recent history:

 

“During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.”

(BBC; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm)

 

Along with a booming gross national product, Clinton’s “Democratic policies” cut the unemployment rate by half, caused an expansion in the stock market (thus leading to thousands of middle class shareholders), and created more than 15 millions jobs.

 

That alone is enough proof that “Democratic economic policies” do not directly lead to economic recession and fallout. While some of Obama’s plans are, most certainly, “unique”, we’re living in a unique time were different strategies have to be developed in order to deal with a situation. Whether it be an economic fallout caused by military and political mismanagement of a war, or simply due to White House, last-days-of-Presidency scandals and Republican clap-trap gossip.

 

Basically, I can agree with

Submitted by In between on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 21:28.

Basically, I can agree with some things you say. Some people will be shocked at the republican side of me, and this may be one of those cases. Normally I am criticizing the republicans, or at least the last 8 years.

We had stagflation and inflation in the 60's and 70's and the unemployment went up, Paul Volcker (brought in by Carter) raised interest rates (under Reagan) to 21.5% on the prime to beat inflation. This gave us unemployment coming down for some 30+years. I don't think it mattered too much who was president. However, Clinton (after a disastrous first 2 years) had turned more conservative and was more controlled by Gingrich and the republican congress.  

Bush was a total disaster on all fronts, and because of this and the financial crisis, we will see years of higher unemployment. Add to that the deficits and debt that will deprive our private sector and our middle class jobs going overseas, the country is in a total mess.

Google Image Result for http://wiki.dickinson.edu/images/6/6b/Unemployment.gif

I don't think the Reagan trickle down had much to do with the economy. It was the fed breaking the back of inflation and therefore interest rates and unemployment came down for 30+years. 

In the case of unemployment figures, and trends, I try to look at the long view. It gives me a better picture to look at.

A longer graph. research.stlouisfed.org.png (image)