"Clinton's 1992 slogan, "Putting people first," and his stress on "the economy, stupid," pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "

January, 1981 Reagan takes office.

Unemployment: 7.5%

Inflation: 11.8%

Interest rates (Federal Funds) 16.39%

January, 1989 Bush takes office

Unemployment: 5.4%

Inflation: 4.7%

Interest rates (Federal Funds): 9.2%

January 1993, Clinton takes office

Unemployment: 7.3%

Inflation: 3.3%

Interest rates (Federal Funds): 3.02%

The middle class situation was better after Reagan-Bush than when Reagan first took office by every measure. When you also factor in that Reagan both cut taxes paid by the middle class and (more importantly) insisted that Congress index tax rates to inflation, it is the rankest revisionism to suggest that the middle class "suffered" under Reagan and Bush.

That's without even considering that Clinton handed Bush II an economy already in a slide toward recession.

Interest rates, inflation and unemployment began to rise sharply about late 1974. Ford was president then. Gold rose 1000% in price by 1980. Interest & unemployment rates flucuated, but the very worst two years for unemployment, about 13%, was 1984 and 1985. Reagans massive military build up began to employ significant numbers both in military and defense contractors by 1985, and in 1986 OPEC unity crumbled and oil plunged from the $80 a bbl it had been for the last ten years to eventually $10, which may have had a impact on our economy and the Reagan Recovery.

The Bush recession was caused by a sudden dramatic reduction in our military following Desert Storm, and the whole sale cancellation of Defense contracts and research contracts along with it. This caused collapse in the housing market in the early 90's as millions and millions were suddenly out of work or had their earnings greatly reduced.

The recession of Clinton's that you say was passed to Bush, was impacted by the rising price of oil, that began in 1998, as OPEC hawks recombined to push up prices. It did not affect the housing market, which had recovered and began its long boom in 1997.

If your point is that the economy (and the degree of people's suffering) is largely dependent on factors outside the control of presidents, well, Greenberg seems to have missed it with his remarks.

Yes, unemployment and interest rates peaked under Reagan, before declining sharply. One who was inclined to think that presidents had more influence over the economy than perhaps you do, would note that the economy doesn't turn on a dime, and negative momentum takes time to turn around. It also takes time for any president to get a significant portion of his polices enacted by Congress, especially a Congress controlled by the other party (ask Clinton). It can't be denied that things were better and improving by the end of Reagan's first term than when he took office, whatever the reason.

When things get better or worse, rightly or wrongly, presidents get the credit or blame. However, to say that the middle class "suffered" under Reagan and Bush is tendentious well beyond any supporting evidence. The middle class in general certainly seem not to have been aware of much suffering under Reagan, as he was re-elected, and Bush was elected to his first term, in landslides with overwhelming support from the middle class,

You know, I'm not an economist, but I am curious how you can use the less than stellar figures at the end of Bush I's presidency (when Clinton took office) to somehow attack Clinton's economic policy. If anything, those numbers reflect growth and progress during Regan, that was largely undone during Bush I. Whether that is a result of forces beyond their control, I leave up to you.

Two points.

First, you refer to the "less than stellar figures at the end of Bush I's presidency". Unemployment had increased, from the end of Reagan's second term, yes, but inflation and interest rates had continued to decline. If you agree with blueskies (don't know if you do or not), you'd attribute the uptick in unemployment to the end of the first Gulf war, etc. But in any case, the overall picture after Bush I is still better than whether Reagan took office. (Note, I'm only lumping Bush I in with Reagan because Greenberg did.)

Second, I don't recall "somehow attack(ing) Clinton's economic policy". I noted that the economy was turning down at the end of his second term, but that's just a matter of keeping the record straight. It isn't a knock on Clinton's economic policy generally, unless you believe that presidents should be capable of managing the economy so that recessions never occur. That isn't a position I suscribe to. I agree with Greenberg that things were mostly pretty good during the Clinton years. I would attribute part of that to the fact that he had to deal with a Republican Congress, but that's not a major quibble.

My issue with Greenberg was his comment about the "suffering" of the middle class under Reagan, because it is completely inaccurate. Since it also is not needed to support an argument that Clinton did a reasonably good job of managing the economy, the effect was to make the article a polemic, rather than a "history lesson".

See I infered you were attacking his policy from your comment that he handed Bush II a country that was already headed towards recession.

I am not an Anti Regan guy, nor am I anti Bush I (the current president is a disaster, but that is another story) I agree with you that the Middle classs didnt suffer under Regan, with the exception of a lot of farmers in the midwest (not that it was direclty his fault there)

We experienced a lot of expansion and growth and it was great, and to be honest, I think that during both periods of growth (Regan and Clinton) the reasons for the growth were largely factors outside the oval office.

Anyways, that is my thought....... Didnt mean to jump on you.

not_abel:

If your point is that the economy (and the degree of people's suffering) is largely dependent on factors outside the control of presidents, well, Greenberg seems to have missed it with his remarks.

*****

Yes and no. The depression from 1975 to 1986 was largely caused by two things, the mechination of shipping allowing cheap foreign imports finally hitting home, and much more important OPEC jacking up the cost of oil to around $80 a bbl, which is about $170 a bbl in today's money. So in this case its No, a Presidents financial policies could not really do much about those two items.

His foreign policy now might have had impact...

******

Yes, unemployment and interest rates peaked under Reagan, before declining sharply. One who was inclined to think that presidents had more influence over the economy than perhaps you do, would note that the economy doesn't turn on a dime, and negative momentum takes time to turn around. It also takes time for any president to get a significant portion of his polices enacted by Congress, especially a Congress controlled by the other party (ask Clinton). It can't be denied that things were better and improving by the end of Reagan's first term than when he took office, whatever the reason.

***************

I agree with you the economy does not turn on a dime. But two major factors for the improvement were ignored by the poster I was replying to, and I have noticed by almost everybody. (1) the massive military buildup employing directly and indirectly a very large chunk of our economy and population by 1985/86. (2) the collapse of the OPEC cartel in 1986 and the price of oil plummeting to about $10 a bbl.

*******

When things get better or worse, rightly or wrongly, presidents get the credit or blame.

***

Thats true.

****

However, to say that the middle class "suffered" under Reagan and Bush is tendentious well beyond any supporting evidence.

****

Thats greenberg talking, not me. What I was pointing out was the positive effect on the economy by Reagans military build up, employing large numbers of blue collar and middle class types.

****

The middle class in general certainly seem not to have been aware of much suffering under Reagan, as he was re-elected, and Bush was elected to his first term, in landslides with overwhelming support from the middle class,

******

The pain was felt when Bush, right after Desert Storm (&oil locked back to $10a bbl), decided the oversized military was no longer wanted and reduced our military by about 1/3rd. I recall millions lost their jobs as defense contracts were cancelled right and left almost overnight while the deregulation in banking and other areas also took a heavy toll, bringing on the collapse of the housing market.

Overall since 1975 the middle and lower classes have been net losers in income while their taxes were increased, while the upper 20% have made large gains in income. and their taxes consistently cut.

Yeah, there seem to be a whole lot of people who think that both Reagan and Clinton worked out OK, despite the fact that both had some obvious flaws. Where did all those people go during the last eight years?

Factors outside the oval office you say? Nonsense, 'twas the luck o' the Irish...

not_abel:

Yeah, there seem to be a whole lot of people who think that both Reagan and Clinton worked out OK, despite the fact that both had some obvious flaws. Where did all those people go during the last eight years?

Factors outside the oval office you say? Nonsense, 'twas the luck o' the Irish...

Right on the mark. Most everybody seem so partisan these days, but it can blind them. and leads them to write these misleading black and white "history lessons"'.

All things considered both Reagan and Clinton did the USA good service. Reagan began the maneuver and Clinton completed it, bringing us back to safe harbor.