To really get a sense of how dismal Obama's confidence ratings have been, you need to compare them to those during the Reagan recovery (for a visual display, see chart).
The 1981-82 recession lasted almost as long as the last one — 16 months vs. 18 months — and pushed unemployment higher. Yet confidence roared back as Reagan's economic policies powered a strong and sustained recovery, with the index topping 100 most months.
Two thing I'd like to cover here. First, while it's definitely true that the Lord Reagan's (peace be upon him) recovery was better, the author neglects to mention several of the reasons why. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. The author DOES cite specific reasons, but I'm assuming he's hoping that his readers are too stupid to realize he's bullshitting them:
Indeed, the only reason the economy continues to struggle for breath is because Obama continues to choke off its air supply. Even now, he has no clue how his policy prescriptions of vast new federal spending, gargantuan debt, massive regulation, a government health care takeover, and endless bashing of businessmen, profits and the "rich" are hampering growth.
Exactly. Everyone remembers how The Gipper courageously and patriotically slashed government spending immediately after he was sworn into office. At least, that's what the Righties claim had happened. Of course, in this little world I like to call "reality", that couldn't be further from the truth. Reagan massively increased spending, which eventually resulted in a tripling of the national debt by the time he left office (that's a 300% increase, compared to Obama's 50% increase, for those of you keeping score).
The biggest drag on the Obama economy is the massive amounts of public sector job losses (600k so far). The Gipper thankfully didn't have to worry about that:
Which president’s economic recovery benefited most from an increasing number of government jobs? Oddly enough, it was President Ronald Reagan, who successfully ran for re-election in 1984 by proclaiming it was “morning in America.” Reagan, running in a year when unemployment fell over a percentage point to 7.5 percent, is generally (and incorrectly) remembered as the first conservative president to dramatically shrink the size and role of government.
There is also the little unfortunate fact that Reagan also raised taxes several times, including this whopper in his first term:
Of particular interest is the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,” the largest of Reagan’s tax increases, and generally considered the largest tax increase — as a percentage of the economy — in modern American history. (The economy began booming in 1983, by the way.)
And furthermore, the top tax rate that Reagan had during 6 of his 8 years, was fifteen points higher than that uber-commie, Barack Obama himself! (50% vs. 35%).
Okay, so we got that out of the way. The other problem I have is that, as you may have guessed from the title, conservatives are always quick to bring out Reagan when trying to defend their policies, but they seem to almost always ignore a certain someone. This guy wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, had a speech impediment, thought he was a cowboy, and held office from 2001 -2009. Did ya guess yet?
Of course, it's no surprise that the righties would rather pretend ole' Dubbers wasn't president for the prior two terms, and I don't really blame them. They have to keep peddling their trickle down, voodoo economics, and they can't point to someone who actually implemented it for nearly a decade, and didn't have jack shit to show for it. So they always have to keep pretending that taxes were never lowered, regulations have increased, and the strongest economic booms always happened when government spending was massively slashed. It would be nice if more people in the mainstream media called out these people, but alas.