Obama took off at month 14 of that chart when the dip was already worse then 1982 and still free fall.
LIAR.
But you are correct, there are differences, for example the dollar adjusted value of the stimulus applied in the 1982 recession was twice what was applied in 2010.
LIAR.
And of course the big difference between this recession and the others you piloted is that this one was caused by a deregulated banking system collapsing in on itself. The last time that occurred was 1929 and we know how that turned out.
LIAR.
You just can't help yourself, lomiller.
You lie every single time you post anything.
Let me prove it once again.
Regarding your first claim:
You are simply regurgitating the lie Obama tried to promote on February 5th of 2009, when he claimed that ""all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression." But in reality, numerous indicators at that time (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index") were far less severe than during the peak of the 1980s recession. Even the New York Times agrees with me on this. Here, from a February 27th, 2009 issue of that paper (
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1) "
Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent". The fact is that Obama lied even earlier than February 5th because on January 11th, 2009 he stated to ABCNews (
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA ) that "Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing,
all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". That statement was simply not true. It was a lie … a lie that gullible supporters like you accepted and keep repeating, regardless of the facts you are shown.
The fact is that history shows over and over that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. Real economic growth in the first 4 quarters of the recovery from the 1981-82 recession averaged 7.7%, and averaged 7.1% in the first 7 recovery quarters. And then we went 92 months without another recession. But under Obama we've seen nothing like this. Indeed, real growth was only 5% the first quarter of the recovery and it never got above that. In the second quarter it fell to 3.7%. It fell to 1.7% in the quarter after that. After seven quarters in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3%, from a high of 10.8% to 7.5%. After seven quarters in the Obama recovery, unemployment fell only 1.3% … and now it's going back up.
Regarding your second claim:
I posted the following to you the last time you claimed that the stimulus applied in 1982 was twice that applied in 2010 …
In particular we discussed the huge stimulus applied in 1980 (2X the recent stimulus in today dollars)
You continue to lie and deceive, lomiller.
What you call stimulus in the 81/82 recession consisted almost entirely of tax cuts, as Malerin pointed out to you in post #181. So I didn't need to respond to you. My side of this debate agrees that tax cuts are good. And the 81 recession proved it. Your side is the one arguing that tax INCREASES and EXTRA SPENDING are good … are what we needed to recover. And there we part company. And so does history. Malerin also listed a bunch of other reasons why your claim about the *stimulus* in 81 being similar in nature and bigger to what Obama has done is completely bogus. But you basically ignored him. So stop lying, lomiller. Stop acting like you know anything about economics or history. You're embarrassing yourself with these repeated lies and distortions (I can probably list at least half a dozen on this thread so far). You are giving lurkers the wrong idea about this forum.
And regarding your third claim:
First, this recession was not primarily caused by a deregulated banking collapse (it was primarily caused by a housing collapse brought on by decades of democrat-driven policies … see Fannie and Freddie and
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/did-deregulated-derivatives-cause-the-financial-crisis/ and regulations forced on banks that encouraged that housing bubble). Second, the banks were just as deregulated in 1981 (see the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980).
Nor was the 1929 collapse primarily caused by a deregulated banking collapse as you claim. It was caused by much the same sort of greed and bad judgement that drove the housing market upwards during the late 90's and 2000's bubble. It was a stock market bubble where stock prices skyrocketed as brokers, investors and banks were leveraging everything on margin to get in on the action. It was caused by those investors not paying attention to the warning signs. And when the 1929 market collapsed, the banks began to collapse. Just as when the 2000's housing market collapsed, the banks found themselves in dire straights. But the second collapse was specifically caused by democrat-driven policies.
Your problem, lomiller, is you and liberals in general NEVER learn. You are so blinded by your ideology that you keep repeating lies that have already been debunked and inventing new ones to spread. And your latest post is proof of both. As I've said before, you are a shameless liar and an embarrassment to the forum. But like you've done time and time again, I predict you will now slink off and just reappear with the same lies some other time.
