Obama’s grasp of history just a bit short-sighted

Speaking today at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, Obama declared:

“As for the long term, remember that the economic vision of Mr. Romney and his allies in Congress was tested just a few years ago. We tried this. Their policies did not grow the economy. They did not grow the middle class. They did not reduce our debt.

“Why would we think that they would work better this time?

“We can’t afford to jeopardize our future by repeating the mistakes of the past. Not now. Not when there’s so much at stake. …

“There is nothing new, just what Bill Clinton has called the same ideas they’ve tried before except on steroids.”

Never worked. Always failed. Blah, blah.

By the end of Ronald Reagan’s third year in office the GDP growth rate was 5 percent — not less than 2 percent as it now is —and was racing toward 8.5 percent growth. Inflation had fallen from Jimmy Carter’s 13 percent to 4 percent. Unemployment rates dropped from 9.5 percent to 5.2 percent. Joblessness now still is 8.2 percent and the number of new jobless claims increased today.

In 15 months of 1983 and 1984, Reagan’s policies resulted in 4.65 million new jobs. In a comparable period in 2011 and 2012, Obama’s seen 2.47 million new jobs, though the population is 33 percent bigger.

Obama suggested today that “if you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney.”

How about the policies of three decades ago? I think that is what Romney is saying.

About these ads

15 comments on “Obama’s grasp of history just a bit short-sighted

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    It might be better to say that Obama “recited”, rather than declared, when was the last time he said anything off the top of his head? His approach to young people is nothing more than reiteration of the hackneyed and droning appeal that his speechwriters worked up for him in 2008.
    He might have captured the attention of a few community college students but I doubt very much that the working people in that area were in any way enthusiastic. And, by the way, how many of them are registered to vote and who says most weren’t merely interested in seeing a president live and on stage, many celebrities, Jon Stewart, for instance, would have drawn more interest. Only Obama and his propagandists in the media believe that all of those present at his onerous and nagging speeches are Democrats, the camera shows a crowd, it doesn’t show 100% adherents.

  2. Steve says:

    I think the last off the cuff remark from Obama was the same as Harry’s.

    The private sector is doing just fine!

    HA!!
    Even those working are working harder and for the same amount or less then what we had before the crash…

  3. Rincon says:

    Thomas, I believe you’re comparing apples to oranges – For example, while citing the gain in GDP under Reagan, you don’t show the equivalent figures for any other president. I Googled gross domestic product and at the top, found google.com/public data, which has an instructional graph outlining GDP from 1960-2010. The graph is a amazingly smooth, no matter who was president or controlled Congress. The graph was smooth until 2007, right at the end of 8 years with Bush, when it dips far more than at any time since 1960.

    So lemme see, the massive dip in GDP in 2007 was just an unlucky break for George W, but failure to bounce back quickly was all Obama’s fault. If you point your finger at Obama, how can you give Bush a free pass?

  4. I don’t give Bush a free pass. But Obama is the reliever and there has been no relief. He can’t continue to blame Bush when he is the one on the mound. (analogy borrowed from WSJ writer today)

    ________________________________

  5. Vernon Clayson says:

    Or perhaps GDP has more to do with the rise and fall of private enterprise than it does with presidents and the never at fault houses of Congress. The Congress allows few days to pass without passing new laws that require restructuring of businesses and business plans and taxes that favor the government and not private enterprise or individuals, and presidents seldom veto such laws. It hasn’t been that long since, for example, the fortunes of automobile manufacturers were dependent on their products and salesmanship, now their fortunes are merely part of the gauge government maintains on its own success. What does Obama really know about any business practice, he’s never worked a shift on an assembly line or any other laborer’s job, he’s never gambled his own money on a business deal. I recall an industrial leader, I believe it was Charles “Charlie” Wilson, saying “The business of America is business” and that worked like nothing before. Henry Ford was in business for himself, his profits profited other businesses and individuals, no president of his time would have had the gall to take credit or fault for his success or failures. Now, “I, Obama”, takes credit for new hires at fast food outlets.

  6. Athos says:

    Why is no one framing the debate over Harry THE CROOK and Nancy Pelousy’s take over of Congress in 2007?????

    And more importantly, the filibuster proof Democrat Majority of 2009?

    Was Trent Dilfer heralded as the reason the Ravens won the Superbowl in 2001? Do the American people REALLY need to be treated as that stupid?

  7. nyp10025 says:

    Had Obama (and Bush) not bailed out GM and Chrysler, they would have liquidated and would have taken out large portions of the Midwest.

  8. No, someone would’ve purchased the plants and equipment at a fire sale. The execs who failed would be unemployed, the union contracts shredded and competition with Southern automakers would be equal.

    UAW was bailed out, not GM or Chrysler:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462650268680454.html?KEYWORDS=uaw+bailed+out

  9. nyp10025 says:

    No one who knows anything about the auto industry believe that.

  10. Vernon Clayson says:

    Mr. Mitchell, I grant that “I, Obama” bailed out the UAW but didn’t that give the union and the feds huge stakes in the company? GM might still be their logo but is it really the GM we knew a few years ago? As for nyp10025′s assertion that liquidations would have taken out large portions of the Midwest, did the world stop when Pontiac, Mercury, Plymouth, DeSoto, Studebaker, Hudson, Packard, Cord, etc., etc. ceased production? Okay, Detroit went to crap but that’s as much, or more, about their politics as it is the auto industry, we sure can’t call present day Detroit another Democrat Party success story.

  11. The union got big stakes. The bondholders and taxpayers got squat.

  12. Vernon Clayson says:

    In current politics “the feds” and the “taxpayers” are separate entities, I believe the feds made out fine as unions contribute to them, I have no knowledge that they have ever contributed to taxpayers. Back to “I, Obama”, and his grasp of history, if there was ever a reach that was out there beyond his grasp it’s his version of his own history, which he may or may not have written. He has to be the only political leader in history that used novels for his credentials; and no person in a position of authority and responsibility questioned it.

  13. He is a fictional president?

  14. Athos says:

    “I, Obama” is the culmination of 100+ years of stealth Marxism.

    The jury is still out if the Marxist rushed the gun. Stay tuned for November.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s