Your third to last paragraph is the key. The failures in the 1982 midterms caused Reagan to work with serious Democrats. Failure in the 2010 midterms will cause Obama to have to work with a bunch of nilihist buffoons who would rather shut the government down for 2 years then give Obama an inch.

One difference is that Reagan had a message and everyone knew what it was, whereas no one knows what Obama's message is; it seems to be triangulation and DLC Eisenhower Republicanism. Reagan took some chances, made some enemies, and "made the hard choices", whereas Obama spent six months kissing Grassley and Snowe's fat asses.

I think that Obama has misread the Carter-Reagan transition. Carter had fairly high unemployment and very high inflation. Reagan increased unemployment in order to decrease inflation. The first five years of the Reagan Administration had higher unemployment than any year of the Carter Administration.

Even at the time, people claimed that Reagan brought unemployment down (I remember that) but he didn't. The guy at the link talks about 13% unemployment; he probably was thinking of 13% inflation.

Link.

You meant to say January 1982

"So far, it's not going well."
No shit, Sherlock. A cursory glance at the quality of discourse coming from the Rethugs and I'll go out on a limb and predict this trend will gather steam. Any particular advice you want to suggest that will bend this curve in favor of the sane would be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking without an emphasis on teaching government and civics in middle school and addressing the media monopoly, nothing else much matters.

There is a simple and vast difference between the challenge Reagan faced and the one Obama faces: the opposition to Reagan was the Democratic Party; for Obama it is the Republicans.

Obama better wake up to the difference.

The other major difference is that while Reagan was struggling through his first term, Republicans were singing his praises whereas thus far, Obama has had Democrats bashing him, complaining about his policies and even adopting right-wing frames about his performance.

The comments here are a usually a fine example of that. I wonder how many Republicans there were in 1982 screaming that Reagan was "just as bad" as Carter.

Chopin, don't give up the ship. Remember last summer, when the "tea party" crowd made a lot of very obnoxious noise out of proportion to their actual numbers. But the polls still showed a majority of Americans supporting health care reform, including the public option. (Of course, Joe Lieberman, I-Aetna, screwed us out of that). Right now, the Republicans are already chilling the champagne to celebrate their glorious midterm election victories next fall. I haven't seen them so smugly confident since 1998, when they were sure that the loathing for the evil, evil Clinton and their glorious impeachment was going to hand them absolute control of Congress. You may remember how that worked out for them. I can' believe there aren't a lot of ordinary voters out there, and not necessarily liberal, who aren't repelled by the Republican antics.

Rats, I wish we could edit these after pushing the "post" button. Editing change to above: The Republicans thought that the loathing for evil Clinton, and the support for their glorious impeachment, was going to hand them absolute control of Congress.

@Vicki Linton:

Actually, Obama had faced stiffer opposition from Democrats than he had from Republicans. So ironically, Obama finds himself in even more dire straights than Reagan.

It would be nice for Democrats to actually rally around the President rather than knee cap him every chance they get. On Gitmo, financial reform, national security - pretty much everything, congressional Democrats are the ones twisting the knife.

This post all seems very persuasive until we get to this:...prompted the White House to deal with Democratic leaders like Tip O'Neill, who were serious about policy and problem solving.

There is no GOP counerpart to Tip O'Neill. Who could President Obama turn to on the Right? Who is serious about policy and problem solving? McConnell? Snowe? Cantor? Bonier???

Reagan is responsible for, yet did not have to contend with the overpowering level of toxicity which now defines our politics.

Actually, Obama had faced stiffer opposition from Democrats than he had from Republicans.

That's lying bullshit. Even though Obama's been kissing their asses, Republicans have stonewalled Obama 40-0 on every significant vote. As Spector reported, they bullied Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich into into voting no.

During his first term Reagan did what he wanted and got what he wanted. During the next term he had to walk it back, but he'd already done a lot of damage.

Obama started off by offering a compromise, and the Republicans slapped him in the face. So now the Democrats are unhappy and the Republicans are still trying to destroy Obama.

A politician has to try to make someone happy. But Democrats have been triangulating against the base for so long that they've forgotten that. So now they're going to move to their backup plan: blaming everyone else for their own failure.

Democrats have to get rid of their counterintuitive DLC advisers, unless losing and shifting the blame is their goal.

There are a some other parallels and contrasts worth noting:

1) Incumbents rarely lose, voting against something that passes. More than 190 Democrats voted against Reagan's tax cuts in 1981; virtually all of them were re-elected in 1982. Something to bear in mind regarding Rs who voted against health care reform.

2) Incumbents who make tough 'yes' votes DO lose -- like Margolies-Mezvinsky, who was the so-called deciding vote for Clinton's 1993 economic plan. (No R who voted against that lost in 1994, either.) Reagan's 1980 coat tails brought in a Republican Senate, including a half-dozen Rs who voted for everything he wanted, starting with the 1981 tax cuts -- who all lost in 1986.

3) But Reagan was always leading a divided government: he had the Presidency and the Senate, but he never had the House. And yet

4) The Boll Weevils (conservative Dems, like then-Democrats Phil Gramm and Richard Shelby) were a decisive factor getting Reagan's agenda through the House -- both budget AND tax cuts, as well as the boom in defense spending. The contrast with the role the Blue Dogs play in Congress regarding Obama's agenda is striking -- Reagan had Democrats resisting their party (Gramm actually went to Democratic Caucus budget strategy meetings, then planned counters with David Stockman), while Obama... well, I guess that's more of a parallel than a contrast, after all.

But the really important thing is what SB describes, but it's a contrast not a parallel -- Reagan had been working to get to the White House for at least 16 years, and he knew pretty much exactly what he wanted to do, the general principles, anyway: he was working with a long horizon so he could compromise when he needed to (e.g., Dole's big tax hike in 1983).

Obama is thinking about that, but the contrasts are so stark -- a Congress dominated by his own party, without visible allies across the aisle, a base that is not solid under him as he maneuvers -- that it's hard to see how Obama can have Reagan's first-term advantage of letting the economics play out so his re-election was all about "Morning in America": Reagan wasn't going to lose the Senate in 1982 (fewer Rs up for re-election); and he never had the House in the first place.

Reagan played the hand he was dealt beautifully -- he didn't fire Volcker or demand inflation, he took his 1982 losses so he could get a landslide in 1984.

Obama has a much tougher hand -- a worse economic crisis, and TWO wars. He can't absorb the losses in 2010 that Reagan took in 1982. Democrats may have God on our side, but we've also got to have Massachusetts come Tuesday.

Obama's problem is he let Americans down regarding health Care reform. He did underestimated Americans.With Health care he should have stuck to principle and stop dithering with politics. Being compatriot with Max Baucus who is only interested in providing for insurance and pharmaceutical corporations showed Obama was not really interested in helping ALL Americans. Yes America is better off with Obama as president. But he is not providing change we can believe in. America and Americans have lost even more to corporations greed and power. The obstructionist were able to be successful. Americans wanted real change. The Health Care deform failed to provide what Amrican voters were looking for.

LOL -- after hearing about the "health care deform", another parallel of sorts with Reagan worth noting here: In October 1982, Reagan gave a pep talk to Republican Congressional candidates that ought to be a touchstone for how to deal with a national leader's political base.

Reagan gave his basic remarks, all about how Republicans need to pull together, and then a guy named Gary Arnold stood up. Arnold was running against Leon Pannetta, and he had one of the creepier campaign slogans of all time: "Looks like Lenin, talks like Lincoln."

And Arnold shot his mouth off to Reagan himself AT THE WHITE HOUSE, along the same lines the left now uses to attack Obama for failing to be what they wanted: "We do not have the President supporting the Presidential programs. He reversed himself on Taiwan, the Soviets have a higher increase in trade, the Soviets get the wheat and the Americans get the shaft. We have a Tylenol taxation situation here, and we have "Reagan-mortis" setting in to the Nation's body politic...."

Reagan got mad, and told the guy he was full of it. But Arnold went on: "You have criticized Carter for having 19 members of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission. You now have 83 of those. Don Regan has Merrill Lynch setting up real estate offices throughout the country. You have Citibank merging with savings and loans. You have Armand Hammer taking over Citicorp. You have a small, elite, rich—the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission that totally runs your organizations..."

When he got to complaining that Reagan had sold out Taiwan, the Gipper just told him: "Shut up!" BIG applause line -- not just among the other Republican Congressional candidates, but in the country, not unlike the "I paid for this microphone" moment that got him the Republican nomination in New Hampshire early in 1980.

And Reagan's response from there, going back to his script, was brilliant, and included this gem: "The same neglected problems that were dragging us down into the recession in 1980 are being confronted today and paving the way for recovery. You know, the great Western leader, Winston Churchill, once said that "When a train is running on the wrong track downhill, you can't try to stop it by building a brick wall across the track. You have to slow it down, then go in reverse back to the junction so you can switch it over to the right track." And that's what we're doing."

None of that helped much with the beating the GOP took in 1982, but it DID show that Reagan was the boss of his party, and that his party would strangle anybody who dissed the boss in his own house: Gary Arnold never got another nickel from the Republican party and isn't even a footnote anymore.

Maybe Obama could use a moment like that.

Is there no fact checking here? The 1980 recession lasted from January to July and was considered mild. It was OVER before Reagan was even elected. And the recession was short and considered mild.

So how does this compare to Obama walking into an existing recession that is considered to be one of the longest and worst in history?

Once Reagan got into power, of course, he proceeded to destroy the country and sent it into a deep recession.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Reagan was lucky to have to deal with a recession brought on by Volcker's sky-high interest rates, making the snap-back a rapid one as Volcker eased up.

Obama inherited a recession which proceeded in spite of zero interest rates, much more difficult to deal with.

Maybe Obama could use a moment like that.

Already been done. Rahm Emmanuel tells Democrats to go fuck themselves all the time. Just not Republicans.

Arnold was a single, atypical Republican. Obama has pissed off a fair proportion of the rank and file and a lot of the House and Senate. The comparison is with Clinton, who ditched the Democrats and relied on Republican votes for the rest of his Presidency.

Reagan was lucky to have to deal with a recession brought on by Volcker's sky-high interest rates, making the snap-back a rapid one as Volcker eased up.

This is correct, but the snapback didn't happen until the middle of Reagan's second term.

Paul Glastris: "Both men took the oath of office amid worst-since-the-Depression recessions"

Nope.

* GDP in the 4th QTR of 1980 was 7.6% when Carter was still in office

* GDP in the 1st QTR of 1981 was 8.6% when Reagan was then in office

Reagan inherited a ROARING economy. The national economy did enter recession until AFTER the FAILED tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate were enacted.

Not quite right -- Carter nominated Volcker for the Fed to kill inflation. Volcker did that by jacking interest rates through the roof, which provoked the 1980 recession -- that was officially over in the summer of 1980, but of course the political damage to Carter was severe. Give the man credit for sticking it out -- helping the country by sacrificing his political career.

There are folks who argue that Volcker tried to help Carter out late that summer, but it wasn't enough and contributed to the second of the double-dip, which began about a year later and lasted through the 1982 elections.

Reagan's economics were essentially old-fashioned Keynesianism: tax cuts and defense spending injected a lot of money into the economy, which by 1983 had largely had inflation wrung out of it, so all that cash caused mild economic gains (a one percent drop in poverty).

What Reagan really presided over was a radical shift in HOW people prospered -- investors lost value in the 70s, but gained more in the 80s than even in the 60s; even as the Boomers kicked into their peak earning years: this is where all that "Ownership Society" stuff came from. Unemployment remained high (over 5% when Reagan left office, compared to 4% when Clinton left, much less the 3.5% of the 60s); and of course Reagan's national debt pretty much exploded the basic covenant between Americans and our government.

In the end, this is Obama's great opportunity: a larger and larger chunk of our national energy goes into less and less productive work. Modern lawyers and financial innovators don't actually create wealth -- the guys who invented derivatives didn't fund the creation of the Internet, the way the people who invented marine insurance made global commerce possible 400 years ago. Reagan's presidency confused tax cuts with responsibility, and getting rich with creating wealth.

That's a tough act to follow -- but I have confidence in Obama.

The "recession" did not occur until the 4th QTR of 1981 and the 1st QTR of 1982:

* GDP in the 4th QTR of 1981 was a NEGATIVE 4.9%

* GDP in the 1st QTR of 1982 was a NEGATIVE 6.4%

and 'double-dipped' in the 3rd QTR & 4th QTR of 1982:

* GDP in the 3rd QTR of 1982 was a NEGATIVE 1.5%

* GDP in the 4th QTR of 1982 was a FLAT 0.3%

Wishful thinking.

"I served with Ronald Reagan, I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Obama, you're no Ronald Reagan."

Reagan never faced anything like the enemy propaganda machine Obama faces, either.

Joe Friday: I'm not sure what point you're making (if any), nor where you get your stats.

I don't take Wikipedia as gospel (more as a mnemonic device), but it's as good a place as any to start: they list the 1980 recession from January to July 1980, and the second part of the double dip from July 1981 to November 1982, which is consistent with my recollection.

How are they wrong? Where do your #s and different definition come from? A couple basic facts you get wrong:

It simply doesn't seem accurate to say that "Reagan inherited a ROARING economy" -- my recollection is that Carter was pretty screwed, in that things weren't that bad but he lost anyway, largely because of his aforementioned guts in hiring Volcker and sticking with him, particularly in the January-July 1980 recession.

I've seen arguments both ways on the second part of the double dip, that it was inevitable because Carter and Volcker didn't quite get the job done by July 1980, or that they HAD succeeded, but something else triggered a recession in July 1981.

But it's just nuts to imagine that the Reagan recession that began in July 1981 was provoked more by Reagan's tax cuts, cuz they weren't even signed into law for another month (August 13, 1981).

And Reagan's principal budget cuts, such as they were (pretty sharp in some area, but a huge overall boost in Federal spending) didn't come until the fall of 1981, when the Reagan recession had already been going on for several months.

Explain?

Poor Fritz Mondale. Reagan appeared to be in serious trouble when Fritz declared his candidacy. But the economy recovered, the voters memories proved short, and in the end Reagan crushed him.

theAmericanist,

"I'm not sure what point you're making (if any)..."

Ah, that Reagan clearly did NOT inherit a recession.

"...nor where you get your stats."

The 'Bureau of Economic Analysis' at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

"I don't take Wikipedia as gospel"

Good instinct.

"It simply doesn't seem accurate to say that 'Reagan inherited a ROARING economy'"

How would you characterize an 8.6% GDP ?

"But it's just nuts to imagine that the Reagan recession that began in July 1981 was provoked more by Reagan's tax cuts, cuz they weren't even signed into law for another month (August 13, 1981)."

GDP in the 3rd QTR of 1981 was still +4.9%.

GDP in the 4th QTR of 1981 was -4.9%.

Uh-huh.

Just to focus on one point, you're saying that the Reagan tax cuts were signed into law on August 13th, and knocked the American economic down nearly 10 percentage points in SIX WEEKS?

Riiiiight.

LOL -- as long as we're investigating Joe Friday's claims, here is what CRS says about 1980-1982:

"The “double dip” recession of the early 1980s was actually two separate recessions interrupted by a very short (two quarter) expansion. Since the expansion was so short and the causes of both recessions were the same, most analyses combine these two recessions, as does this report. Taken together, the double dip recession represents the deepest and longest recession in the post-war period. Economic growth fell by more than 2% in each recession and the unemployment rate rose from 6.3% in the first quarter of 1980 to 10.8% at the end of 1982 (one quarter after the recession had ended)."

True, growth for the 3rd quarter of 1981 was 4.9%, but growth had gone from 8% in the 1st quarter of 1981 to -2.8% in the 2nd quarter, so I dunno how you can retroactively blame Reagan's tax cuts, enacted in August for the generally shaky state of the economy when he took office in January.

It seems a bit more honest to acknowledge, as I did upthread, that Carter nominated Volcker for the Fed to kill inflation, which he did. Carter deserves credit for essentially destroying his political career by sticking with Volcker's high interest rates (which triggered the first, mild recession).

Reagan deserves a different kind of credit for letting Volcker continue -- the prime peaked, not under Carter, but under Reagan at more than 21% in June, 1982: and THAT had a helluva lot more to do with the double dip recession.

You don't see to know leading from lagging.

theAmericanist,

"Just to focus on one point, you're saying that the Reagan tax cuts were signed into law on August 13th, and knocked the American economic down nearly 10 percentage points in SIX WEEKS?"

Not that I've noticed, but even if I had, the national economy has done so in the past.

theAmericanist,

"as long as we're investigating Joe Friday's claims"

Actually, you mean the data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

"You don't see to know leading from lagging."

You don't seem to know claims from facts.

Actually, I'm all for your method, but you're not actually USING it. To do a genuine "just the facts" approach, you can't confuse 'em with claims: to see cause and effect, you have to be strict about what comes first (e.g., high interest rates), and what comes after (negative economic growth).

It is a fact that in 1980 the economy shrunk about 8% in the second quarter, then pretty much froze in place in the third quarter, and grew 7.3% in the fourth -- but it is a CLAIM that this is cuz Volcker was squeezing the economy in a vise to wring inflation out of it.

Yet most folks recognize that to be true. Are you saying otherwise?

Likewise, it's a fact that the fourth quarter growth in 1980 carried over to the first quarter growth in 1981: it's not that hard to get to 8% from 7.3%.

So the real question is: how did the 8% 1981 first quarter growth become the -2.8% of the second quarter? You're hallucinating if you think it was because Reagan took office.

How'd that bounce up to 4.9% in the third -- what, you figure it's cuz Reagan went on vacation? And then (cuz he signed the tax cuts????) it drops to -4.6% in the fourth, and even deeper to -6.5% in the first quarter of 1982?

You CLAIM that this is cuz of Reagan's tax cuts. But that's where you run into the whole before/after thing -- nothing that comes after can cause what came before. Reagan's tax cuts weren't even part of the equation until August 1981 (and didn't have much effect for quite some time thereafter).

Me, I just note that Volcker raised the prime rate from 15.25 at the end of 1979, to 15.75 in early Feb 1980, to 16.75 by the end of February, to 17.25 in early March, then 19.50 at the end of March, 20% at the beginning of April.

Then it started back down -- and by the end of July, when most folks recognize that first dip of the recession was over, the prime was down to 11%

This is what is generally recognized as a LEADING indicator, cuz the effect of dropping interest rates was felt some months later -- in the growth rates you're talking about at the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981: too late, alas, for Carter's re-election (which some cynics concluded was the primary motivation for dropping 'em, cuz inflation hadn't been beaten, viz. the inflation rate in 1980 started the year at 13.9%, and increased (not DEcreased) through July, when the recession finally ended (and, not incidentally, when Volcker dropped the prime to 11%.)

You didn't get inflation under 6% until August 1982. When Reagan took office in January 1981, it was nearly 12%.

This is what you're insisting is the "ROARING economy" that Reagan inherited. It don't look healthy to me -- Volcker raised interest rates from 11% in July 1980, to the record 21.5% at the end of 1980 -- and THAT, again, is what crushed economic growth a few months later, when the Reagan recession kicked in. (Note the relationship between the leading indicator and the result: the lowest interest rate in 1980 was at the end of July, and the highest growth was five months later; the peak interest rate in 1980 was at the end of December, and the recession returned... six months later.)

Facts.

It was Volcker's long, slow, painful wringing inflation out of the economy by sustaining the prime rate in the 10-20% range that explains the economics of the early 1980s, because it's the only one that consistently happens BEFORE the effects people want to either claim credit or assign blame for.

theAmericanist,

"It is a fact that in 1980 the economy shrunk about 8% in the second quarter, then pretty much froze in place in the third quarter, and grew 7.3% in the fourth"

And grew by 8.6% in the first quarter of 1981.

Therefore, it was chronologically impossible for Reagan to have inherited a recession.

"It drops to -4.6% in the fourth, and even deeper to -6.5% in the first quarter of 1982?"

Down 4.9% in the fourth and down 6.4% in the first quarter of '82.

That's the recession.

You're reenforcing MY point.

You could argue that, but it'd mark you as a blind partisan, and not particularly either informed or astute about economics.

The pretty broad consensus, e.g., the CRS report I quoted, about the economy from roughly 1979-1983 is that there was essentially ONE recession, broken up by two quarters of growth.

The first dip was January-July 1980. Then there was a brief period of growth at the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981, followed by a longer and deeper second dip.

It's defensible (if a bit tendentious) to insist that Reagan didn't inherit a recession from Carter, because the economy was growing after the election and through Reagan's inauguration.

But the idea that he inherited a ROARING economy, as you keep insisting, flies in the face of the underlying facts: the inflation rate (12% when Reagan was sworn in), interest rates (peaking at 21.5!!!! right before he took office), unemployment (7.5% in Jaunuary 1981) , etc.

And your peculiar idea that it was Reagan's tax cuts which sunk the economy starting in July 1981 is just nuts: the tax cuts weren't signed into law until August.

The best partisan arguments are formed by people who know shit from sunshine in the first place.

I argue folks should seek truth from facts around here all the time: kindly don't give the concept a worse reputation than I have.

theAmericanist,

"You could argue that..."

I haven't put forth any arguments.

"...but it'd mark you as a blind partisan, and not particularly either informed or astute about economics."

Not surprising, considering how repeatedly off the mark you've been with everything else so far.

"The pretty broad consensus, e.g., the CRS report I quoted, about the economy from roughly 1979-1983 is that there was essentially ONE recession, broken up by two quarters of growth. The first dip was January-July 1980."

I'm afraid you and your "consensus" is WRONG, as the GDP in the 1st QTR of 1980 was +1.3%. Since the 1st QTR is comprised of January+February+March, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for your so-called "dip" to extend from "January-July 1980" as you claim.

You are simply UNINFORMED.

"It's defensible (if a bit tendentious) to insist that Reagan didn't inherit a recession from Carter, because the economy was growing after the election and through Reagan's inauguration."

As well as the rest of that quarter.

You are simply UNINFORMED.

"But the idea that he inherited a ROARING economy, as you keep insisting, flies in the face of the underlying facts"

No, it doesn't.

BY ANY MEASURE, GDP of +8.6% is a ROARING economy.

You are simply UNINFORMED.

"The best partisan arguments are formed by people who know shit from sunshine in the first place."

You might want to try that.

Your gibberish is tiring.

LOL -- I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Joe, but you're a fucking idjit: "BY ANY MEASURE, GDP of +8.6% is a ROARING economy...."

Yeah -- and you can get a ROARING fire by pouring gasoline in a woodstove.

But it's not a good idea, not simply cuz it won't last, but also cuz it is quite likely to explode and burn down your house.

(patiently) Sensible folks recognize that the two quarters of growth between longer stretches of decline 1980-1982 were caused by Volcker's evident attempt to help Carter's re-election, rather than by any underlying economic recovery. The lower rates were just mis-timed, because while they DID jack up economic growth, the big bump happened in the 4th quarter of 1980, too late to save Carter's re-election.

Your notion that this means that Reagan inherited a ROARING economy flies in the face of pretty much every economic indicator (e.g., 12% inflation, 7.5% unemployment, and most especially the record 21.5% prime rate in December) when he took office. By NO measures do those stats indicate a "ROARING economy", asshole.

Confronted by actual facts, you keep insisting that a burst of flame is sustainable heat rather than running on fumes. To sensible folks, this demonstrates that you're either stooopid, or dishonest, or egregiously uninformed.

Yanno, this is what denotes a knucklehead partisan: it's not so much the single, out of context fact, as the profound denial of everything else.

Ya might wanna exorcise your inner Palin before expressing an opinion next time.

Unlike YOU, I was not peddling my unsubstantiated opinion.

The U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Congressional Budget Office ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

LOL -- no, they don't.

What the Treasury, the CBO, and everybody else notes about those two quarters is that the economy grew in 'em. This is not particularly significant.

That's because there was a recession immediately BEFORE those two quarters, and another immediately AFTER 'em, and the conditions which caused BOTH recessions continued throughout the quarters in which there was growth.

Your notion that Reagan got a "ROARING economy" is crap -- and what's more, you know it's crap, or you wouldn't keep distorting what sensible people know about the subj.

LOL -- show us where ANY of your sources (the Treasury, the CBO) reported a "ROARING economy" for the time we're talking about.

Use quotes.

LOL -- and, as long as I'm stomping you into jelly: the guy who cites the inflation, unemployment and interest rates and quotes CRS explaining the consensus among economists is not the guy stating an "unsubstantiated" opinion.

That'd be the guy who dismissed all those basic economic indicators as "gibberish".

You're free to wallow in you ignorance.