10 stupid myths liberals believe

[Bfgrn]

Again, the leftist attack Reagan because their own policies suck................

After Peanut head the inflation was through the roof.............Mr. Stagflation himself.............Reagan killed the inflation first and then we had massive economic improvements.............Most of the increase in debt was the rebuilding of the military which was very much needed..........

He had cuts that would have stopped a good deal of the debt, but could not get them passed as Gov't has always been for more more more...............which is why we are in the dump again......

Add in the Free Trade..........and millions of jobs lost to the third world.

In the words of the great socialist..."there you go again"

Mr. Stagflation is Richard Nixon, not Carter. Carter was the only man with the foresight to call for a comprehensive energy policy.

Educate yourself on the Nixon SHOCK.

Nixon's solution?

Imposition of wage and price controls on 15 August 1971, an initial wave of cost-push shocks in commodities was blamed for causing spiraling prices.

The second major shock was the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) constrained the worldwide supply of oil. Both events, combined with the overall energy shortage that characterized the 1970s, resulted in actual or relative scarcity of raw materials. The price controls resulted in shortages at the point of purchase, causing, for example, queues of consumers at fueling stations and increased production costs for industry.


"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bfgrn:

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. You're attempting to paint Reagan as someone who didn't care about the poor. If he indeed favored the rich, why is it he raised taxes so many times during his presidency? Were you one of Reagan's opponents during the recession leading up to his second term, you would have used the same tactic and it did appear that way for a time. But as it so happened, he engineered one the more prosperous eras in American history. But what I find funny is, Clinton did the same thing, but we don't hear people like you accusing him of favoring the rich now do we?

 

[eagle1462010]

Yawn...........

Carter left office with Stagflation........Massive stagflation................So why didn't he fix it............

Oh, I'm sorry, we had to wait until Reagan came into office to get it fixed.............

and Obama with 5 years has fixed us right.............

LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

Carter caused Stagflation, Bfgrn. Energy policy and economic policy have nothing to do with one another. By clamping down on the money supply via the Federal Reserve Board he planted the seeds of a recession. He refused to resupply the economy with the money it needed and caused it to fall into a big recession.

But the most important element in the war against inflation was the Federal Reserve Board, which clamped down hard on the money supply beginning in 1979. By refusing to supply all the money an inflation-ravaged economy wanted, the Fed caused interest rates to rise. As a result, consumer spending and business borrowing slowed abruptly. The economy soon fell into a deep recession.

Stagflation in the 1970s

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. You're attempting to paint Reagan as someone who didn't care about the poor. If he indeed favored the rich, why is it he raised taxes so many times during his presidency? Were you one of Reagan's opponents during the recession leading up to his second term, you would have used the same tactic and it did appear that way for a time. But as it so happened, he engineered one the more prosperous eras in American history. But what I find funny is, Clinton did the same thing, but we don't hear people like you accusing him of favoring the rich now do we?

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up...for WHOM?

The Reagan administration did not shrink the size of the federal government, it changed the ways that Washington collected and spent its money, by reducing taxes on the affluent, cutting some social programs and increasing military spending.

These policies ended up magnifying income inequality, which was already rising for other reasons. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled.

 

[eagle1462010]

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ummmmmmmm

How's the Obama plan working........................

Perhaps we need another Reagan..........................

 

[Bfgrn]

Carter caused Stagflation, Bfgrn. Energy policy and economic policy have nothing to do with one another. By clamping down on the money supply via the Federal Reserve Board he planted the seeds of a recession. He refused to resupply the economy with the money it needed and caused it to fall into a big recession.

But the most important element in the war against inflation was the Federal Reserve Board, which clamped down hard on the money supply beginning in 1979. By refusing to supply all the money an inflation-ravaged economy wanted, the Fed caused interest rates to rise. As a result, consumer spending and business borrowing slowed abruptly. The economy soon fell into a deep recession.

Stagflation in the 1970s

Carter did not cause Stagflation. And he was never the head of the Federal Reserve. When the price of oil skyrockets, energy policy and economic policy have EVERYTHING to do with one another.

Causes

Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation occurs. First, stagflation can result when the productive capacity of an economy is reduced by an unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil for an oil importing country. Such an unfavorable supply shock tends to raise prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production more costly and less profitable. Milton Friedman famously described this situation as "too much money chasing too few goods".

Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply, and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of goods markets and labour markets. Either of these factors can cause stagflation. Excessive growth of the money supply taken to such an extreme that it must be reversed abruptly can clearly be a cause. Both types of explanations are offered in analyses of the global stagflation of the 1970s: it began with a huge rise in oil prices, but then continued as central banks used excessively stimulative monetary policy to counteract the resulting recession, causing a runaway price/wage spiral.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:

Another thing. About this image you took from the Liberal leaning Economic Policy Institute:

Notice how it skipped the 1980s altogether. Also notice how it never states how much the incomes of the lower classes actually decreased under Bush. This is obfuscation.

As for this little gem you took from MoveOn.org:

It was debunked and given 4 Pinnochios by the Washington Post.

The Facts

The person who posted this on Facebook noted: “From the US Treasury Dept — any questions?” But it actually is not a Treasury Department calculation, just manipulated data taken from the Treasury Web site.

The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. For instance, as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same.

The chart also cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show “public debt” but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt.

Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness, at least among economists.

If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league — 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush — even though Bush served as president much longer.

But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time.

If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points

A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life - The Washington Post


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

-Winston Churchill

 

[Bfgrn]

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

More Reagan Cherry-Picking by Peter Ferrara

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bfgrn:

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. You're attempting to paint Reagan as someone who didn't care about the poor. If he indeed favored the rich, why is it he raised taxes so many times during his presidency? Were you one of Reagan's opponents during the recession leading up to his second term, you would have used the same tactic and it did appear that way for a time. But as it so happened, he engineered one the more prosperous eras in American history. But what I find funny is, Clinton did the same thing, but we don't hear people like you accusing him of favoring the rich now do we?

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up...for WHOM?

The Reagan administration did not shrink the size of the federal government, it changed the ways that Washington collected and spent its money, by reducing taxes on the affluent, cutting some social programs and increasing military spending.

These policies ended up magnifying income inequality, which was already rising for other reasons. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled.

Yanno, the New York Times has zero cred with me. After they pulled that little stunt about Benghazi, they lost a lot of respect. Also, do you think I'm dumb enough not to notice the title of that article? This is a progressive giving his opinion of what Reagan did. In this four year old article, the author refers to Obama as "the liberal answer to Ronald Reagan." That's weaksauce, and desperation on your part.

Should you derive your facts from more objective sources, let me know.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Carter caused Stagflation, Bfgrn. Energy policy and economic policy have nothing to do with one another. By clamping down on the money supply via the Federal Reserve Board he planted the seeds of a recession. He refused to resupply the economy with the money it needed and caused it to fall into a big recession.

But the most important element in the war against inflation was the Federal Reserve Board, which clamped down hard on the money supply beginning in 1979. By refusing to supply all the money an inflation-ravaged economy wanted, the Fed caused interest rates to rise. As a result, consumer spending and business borrowing slowed abruptly. The economy soon fell into a deep recession.

Stagflation in the 1970s

Carter did not cause Stagflation. And he was never the head of the Federal Reserve. When the price of oil skyrockets, energy policy and economic policy have EVERYTHING to do with one another.

Causes

Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation occurs. First, stagflation can result when the productive capacity of an economy is reduced by an unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil for an oil importing country. Such an unfavorable supply shock tends to raise prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production more costly and less profitable. Milton Friedman famously described this situation as "too much money chasing too few goods".

Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply, and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of goods markets and labour markets. Either of these factors can cause stagflation. Excessive growth of the money supply taken to such an extreme that it must be reversed abruptly can clearly be a cause. Both types of explanations are offered in analyses of the global stagflation of the 1970s: it began with a huge rise in oil prices, but then continued as central banks used excessively stimulative monetary policy to counteract the resulting recession, causing a runaway price/wage spiral.

Hey, Einstein, just who exactly appoints the heads of the Federal Reserve? The President. Your argument is falling apart. Carter appointed Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. The same year that the Federal Reserve began restricting the money supply to other areas of the economy, and began increasing interest rates.

Repeat after me:

Carter. Caused. Stagflation.

 

[eagle1462010]

Of course his Pravda graphs skipped the 80's.................

LOL

Good post Templar.................

 

[Bfgrn]

[MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:

Another thing. About this image you took from the Liberal leaning Economic Policy Institute:

Notice how it skipped the 1980s altogether. Also notice how it never states how much the incomes of the lower classes actually decreased under Bush. This is obfuscation.

As for this little gem you took from MoveOn.org:

It was debunked and given 4 Pinnochios by the Washington Post.

The Facts

The person who posted this on Facebook noted: “From the US Treasury Dept — any questions?” But it actually is not a Treasury Department calculation, just manipulated data taken from the Treasury Web site.

The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. For instance, as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same.

The chart also cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show “public debt” but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt.

Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness, at least among economists.

If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league — 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush — even though Bush served as president much longer.

But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time.

If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points

A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life - The Washington Post


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

-Winston Churchill

Some more facts:

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. You're attempting to paint Reagan as someone who didn't care about the poor. If he indeed favored the rich, why is it he raised taxes so many times during his presidency? Were you one of Reagan's opponents during the recession leading up to his second term, you would have used the same tactic and it did appear that way for a time. But as it so happened, he engineered one the more prosperous eras in American history. But what I find funny is, Clinton did the same thing, but we don't hear people like you accusing him of favoring the rich now do we?

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up...for WHOM?

The Reagan administration did not shrink the size of the federal government, it changed the ways that Washington collected and spent its money, by reducing taxes on the affluent, cutting some social programs and increasing military spending.

These policies ended up magnifying income inequality, which was already rising for other reasons. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled.

Yanno, the New York Times has zero cred with me. After they pulled that little stunt about Benghazi, they lost a lot of respect. Also, do you think I'm dumb enough not to notice the title of that article? This is a progressive giving his opinion of what Reagan did. In this four year old article, the author refers to Obama as "the liberal answer to Ronald Reagan." That's weaksauce, and desperation on your part.

Should you derive your facts from more objective sources, let me know.

Hey pea brain, maybe we should give 'cred' to Peter J. Ferrara who admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients?

 

[Bfgrn]

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Desperado]

Among other liberal beliefs:

x. the government can never be too big.
x. the government knows how to spend your money better than you do
x. the government is here to help you
x. the government is smarter than you are
x. you can trust your government

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:

Another thing. About this image you took from the Liberal leaning Economic Policy Institute:

Notice how it skipped the 1980s altogether. Also notice how it never states how much the incomes of the lower classes actually decreased under Bush. This is obfuscation.

As for this little gem you took from MoveOn.org:

It was debunked and given 4 Pinnochios by the Washington Post.

The Facts

The person who posted this on Facebook noted: “From the US Treasury Dept — any questions?” But it actually is not a Treasury Department calculation, just manipulated data taken from the Treasury Web site.

The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. For instance, as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same.

The chart also cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show “public debt” but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt.

Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness, at least among economists.

If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league — 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush — even though Bush served as president much longer.

But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time.

If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points

A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life - The Washington Post


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

-Winston Churchill

Some more facts:

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Now you're throwing random irrelevant facts at me. Not to mention you are copy pasting without your sources.

Here's some reality:

In the past 5 years the total debt of the US has increased $7.4 trillion, under Obama's watch. If it took Reagan 5 years to add $1 trillion, that means Obama took same amount of time increasing the debt by seven and a half times as much. From what I'm seeing, Obama has added more debt than either the Bush or Reagan Administrations COMBINED.

Let me repeat that for you. It took 19 years for the debt to get to $4 trillion. It took Obama 5 years to add $7.4 trillion, an increase of sevenfold of Reagan, and double that of Bush. He has nearly doubled the spending of all of those administrations put together. Get your facts straight.

 

[bedowin62]

Liberals love to give out money to help other people..................

Problem is they give out other people's money..........................

Liberals believe in 'tax and spend' government. PAY as you go. Conservatives, starting with the great socialist Ronald Reagan, believe in 'BORROW and spend' government. Borrow and burden future generations with the bill that was run up on the Beijing credit card.

The results are in...the Reagan revolution was as big of a failure of ideology as the other great failure of the 20th century...the Bolshevik revolution.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

sigh...............


Reagan didnt increase the Debtl his EIGHT-YEAR DEMOCRAT HOUSE MAJORITY THAT HELD THE PURSE STRINGS DID. its hilarious; these are the same morons who voted for all of the "Reagan" Debt; and support all of the obama debt: trying to make some kind of point that Republicans are supposedly hypocrites since they spent alot. what is the point of making that point if you are on the side that supported all of THAT debt and continue to support deficit spending even as the Debt is over $17 trillion dollars?

How can you think you are exposing someone else as a hypocrite when you supported everything they did; even INCREASED THE DEBT?
Reagan had an 8-year Dem House holding the purse strings; he had to make deals. Reagan was also a Democrat in his earlier years.

So many Dems voted for Reagan's policies the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to refer to them.

Despite Reagan's "welfare queen" remark spending on social programs INCREASED under Reagan. liberals support that kind of spending; so how can they come here with a chart and a graph and pretend they didnt support Reagan's spending???


and we got a GREAT ECONOMY FOR REAGAN'S SPENDING AND POLICIES

we're still waiting for all that "progress" under the inept, failed excuse of a leader named obama

the same liberal idiots like chart guy above whine that republicans have been able to "obstruct" obama; even thought repubs were the MINORITY OF BOTH CHAMBERS of Congress for all of obama's first two years.................

yet somehow the EIGHT-YEAR Reagan House majority was helpless in stopping all that "Reagan spending"?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[LoneLaugher]

Under Reagan the Median Family Income went up...for WHOM?

The Reagan administration did not shrink the size of the federal government, it changed the ways that Washington collected and spent its money, by reducing taxes on the affluent, cutting some social programs and increasing military spending.

These policies ended up magnifying income inequality, which was already rising for other reasons. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled.

Yanno, the New York Times has zero cred with me. After they pulled that little stunt about Benghazi, they lost a lot of respect. Also, do you think I'm dumb enough not to notice the title of that article? This is a progressive giving his opinion of what Reagan did. In this four year old article, the author refers to Obama as "the liberal answer to Ronald Reagan." That's weaksauce, and desperation on your part.

Should you derive your facts from more objective sources, let me know.

Hey pea brain, maybe we should give 'cred' to Peter J. Ferrara who admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients?

Whoa, whoa, whoa......stop the clock! No need to call anyone names here, Einstein!