Reaganomics

[EconChick]

The next thing I'd like to point out is you lefties never put your graphs, links, and numbers into any context.

I guess that works on people naïve enough to not question your assumptions and context...but that pool of dum dums is getting smaller and smaller as every day Americans are figuring out what a mess O's made of the economy, and especially their livelihoods.

So lets' give this some context. As I mentioned in my post, Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates.

What were the rates under Carter before Reagan started fixing the economy?

Hint: they were, wait for it...........wait...wait...wait for it........they were double digit.

As you can see from the graph, Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment, which is single digit (because the decimal doesn't count)

The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.

 

[auditor0007]

The next thing I'd like to point out is you lefties never put your graphs, links, and numbers into any context.

I guess that works on people naïve enough to not question your assumptions and context...but that pool of dum dums is getting smaller and smaller as every day Americans are figuring out what a mess O's made of the economy, and especially their livelihoods.

So lets' give this some context. As I mentioned in my post, Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates.

What were the rates under Carter before Reagan started fixing the economy?

Hint: they were, wait for it...........wait...wait...wait for it........they were double digit.

As you can see from the graph, Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment, which is single digit (because the decimal doesn't count)

The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.

His numbers are spot on, but he fails to give us the rest of the story. By the end of Reagan's second term, the unemployment rate was down to 5.4%. What is interesting is that Obama is on much the same path that Reagan saw with unemployment as it was 7.8% when Obama took office, then it rose to a high of 9.9%, and then began coming down to the current 6.2 or 6.3%. By the time Obama leaves office, it will likely be in the 5's.

One big difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan increased government spending dramatically, which was good for the economy. Obama has barely increase federal spending at all since his first year which was not his actual budget.

 

[Listening]

This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.

The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.

And yet, 4 years into Reagan's term, people seem to think things were getting better and were feeling pretty good.

Obama was re-elected by a populace that does not like the direction the country is going.

Reagan took over when interest rates were where ?

Versus Obama who has enjoyed some of the lowest interest rates to date.

But what has this got to do with Reaganomics ? I really don't know.

If you read the OP....you'll see that is why I started the thread.

 

[billyerock1991]

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan. It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics. Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan. Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program. I could be wrong, but that is a guess. Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

what reagon believed was to cut taxes on corporations ... which he did... he believed by doing this corporations would make more money and they would spend that money to expand their companies... which they didn't do ... they kept their welth and jobs became scarce... reagan believed that the money would trickle down to the middle class and the poor ... it didn't... Bush continued his policies and he saw that he had to raise taxes. which that created a problem with his base along with huricane Andrew ... where Bush 1 said well I realize I'm 5 days late so lets not play the balme game... humm where did we hear that statement before...

then clinton got elected what did he do??? he raised the taxes on everybody ...republicans ranted it will be the end of the country... what happen ???well , you all know... he signed into law repairing of roads and bridges and water systems... along with police and fire jobs... under bill clinton we had more jobs more money coming into the coffer ... then when he left office Clinton had a 500 billion dollar surplus, to pay on the national debt ... we all know what happen there ... did I leave anything out???

 

[billyerock1991]

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.

I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...

 

[billyerock1991]

This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.

The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.

And yet, 4 years into Reagan's term, people seem to think things were getting better and were feeling pretty good.

Obama was re-elected by a populace that does not like the direction the country is going.

Reagan took over when interest rates were where ?

Versus Obama who has enjoyed some of the lowest interest rates to date.

But what has this got to do with Reaganomics ? I really don't know.

If you read the OP....you'll see that is why I started the thread.

if you are going to compare you need a subject... like I said I remember living under reagan ... companies were borrowing money to stay afloat ... in comparison under Obama compamies didn't have to borrow large sums and because of the previous president bank debackle under bush the banks wouldn't loan money... where Obama turned the down fall of the market ... reagan didn't do that... Reagan kept his policies and if you look his unemployment record it too went up where under obama his unemployment went down ... now you ask what this has to do with reaganomics ... you see what reagans policy of cutting taxes did and you see what obama did when he let the bush tax cut expire ... jobs went up when taxes went up ... jobs went down when taxes were cut ...its that sinple... if you don't want a comparison then you really don't wnat to know who did a better job ...

 

[billyerock1991]

The next thing I'd like to point out is you lefties never put your graphs, links, and numbers into any context.

I guess that works on people naïve enough to not question your assumptions and context...but that pool of dum dums is getting smaller and smaller as every day Americans are figuring out what a mess O's made of the economy, and especially their livelihoods.

So lets' give this some context. As I mentioned in my post, Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates.

What were the rates under Carter before Reagan started fixing the economy?

Hint: they were, wait for it...........wait...wait...wait for it........they were double digit.

As you can see from the graph, Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment, which is single digit (because the decimal doesn't count)

The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.

your truth not the reality of truth
...

 

[EconChick]

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.

I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...

No, the unemployment rate had gone up after Reagan's inauguration, but barely just after he had submitted his budget and given it a chance to take affect. That means the high UE number was due to Carter's policies. Once Reagan's policies took effect, the numbers dropped steadily till he left office. Not like Obama's that go up and down.

He left office at 5.2% Unemployment. But more importantly, inflation had dropped so drastically that the price of everything...a house, food, cars, etc.....things that matter to the middle class....had come way down.

And what else was a great thing for the middle class??? Interest rates had gong as high as 20% under Carter but were brought wayyyyyyyyyyyyy down by Reagan so people could afford homes.

This is why people loved the 80s.

As for Clinton, he enjoyed the heavy lifting Reagan did at ending the very costly Cold War. Clinton got the benefit of that with defense cuts left and right....and after Reagan had cleaned out the cobwebs in the economy and gotten it firing on all four cylinders.

 

[EconChick]

As you can see from the graph, Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment, which is single digit (because the decimal doesn't count)

The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.

your truth not the reality of truth
...

It's laughable that anyone would claim a president starts being held responsible for the unemployment rate before he even gets inaugurated, or before he even submits a budget to Congress.

Wake up guys. You don't know how to read data.

 

[Meathead]

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.

I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...

You should have gotten out from under your rock more in the 80s. You might have some idea of what happened then and likely more insight on Obama's failures.

Reagan changed America and the world for better. His successors have failed this country in a chronologically sliding scale. I hope that with Obama we have bottomed out.

 

[EconChick]

This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.

The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.

And yet, 4 years into Reagan's term, people seem to think things were getting better and were feeling pretty good.

Obama was re-elected by a populace that does not like the direction the country is going.

Reagan took over when interest rates were where ?

Versus Obama who has enjoyed some of the lowest interest rates to date.

But what has this got to do with Reaganomics ? I really don't know.

If you read the OP....you'll see that is why I started the thread.

if you are going to compare you need a subject... like I said I remember living under reagan ... companies were borrowing money to stay afloat ... in comparison under Obama compamies didn't have to borrow large sums and because of the previous president bank debackle under bush the banks wouldn't loan money... where Obama turned the down fall of the market ... reagan didn't do that... Reagan kept his policies and if you look his unemployment record it too went up where under obama his unemployment went down ... now you ask what this has to do with reaganomics ... you see what reagans policy of cutting taxes did and you see what obama did when he let the bush tax cut expire ... jobs went up when taxes went up ... jobs went down when taxes were cut ...its that sinple... if you don't want a comparison then you really don't wnat to know who did a better job ...

Sorry, Billyrock, I'm sure you're a nice, hardworking guy, but you don't know how to read the stats at all.

 

[pinqy]

First of all, you realize there are 6 unemployment rates, don't you? U1 through U-6. I can't believe you'd post a graph that doesn't even show you which rate you're trying to tell the audience you're referring to.

You're doing that either out of ignorance or deceit. Neither one is good.

Ok, I have to nitpick here. Besides the fact that you yourself have referenced the UE rate without specifying each one, there are NOT 6 unemployment rates. The U-1 and U-2 measure aspects of unemployment (long term unemployment and job losers) and the U4,5, and 6 include people who are not unemployed in the numerator, with the U-6 including millions of employed. They are measures of Underutilization.


Also, the current measures didn't come into being until 1994, and it's not possible to reconstruct earlier, so any graph or set prior to 1994 will necessarily be what is now the U-3 but was the U-5 from 1976-1983 and the U-5b from 1984-1993.

So he couldn't have been using any other rate, and, as you've demonstrated yourself, simply saying UE rate is understood as being the U-3

 

[Bush92]

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.

I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...

You mean those years when NAFTA and GATT sent millions of American jobs out of country?

 

[Bush92]

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

Reagan vs. Obama...its no contest.

 

[Bush92]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY]Ronald Reagan TV Ad: "Its morning in america again" - YouTube[/ame]

If we could only go back, sigh.

 

[Listening]

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.

I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...

I lived through the Reagan years.

They started slow and by the end, things were rocking.

I lived in this country. I watched unemployment drop and interest rates come down substantially.

The Clinton economy was made possible by Reagan.

 

[Listening]

This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.

The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.

And yet, 4 years into Reagan's term, people seem to think things were getting better and were feeling pretty good.

Obama was re-elected by a populace that does not like the direction the country is going.

Reagan took over when interest rates were where ?

Versus Obama who has enjoyed some of the lowest interest rates to date.

But what has this got to do with Reaganomics ? I really don't know.

If you read the OP....you'll see that is why I started the thread.

if you are going to compare you need a subject... like I said I remember living under reagan ... companies were borrowing money to stay afloat ... in comparison under Obama compamies didn't have to borrow large sums and because of the previous president bank debackle under bush the banks wouldn't loan money... where Obama turned the down fall of the market ... reagan didn't do that... Reagan kept his policies and if you look his unemployment record it too went up where under obama his unemployment went down ... now you ask what this has to do with reaganomics ... you see what reagans policy of cutting taxes did and you see what obama did when he let the bush tax cut expire ... jobs went up when taxes went up ... jobs went down when taxes were cut ...its that sinple... if you don't want a comparison then you really don't wnat to know who did a better job ...

No, it isn't that simple.

Obama has been hemoraging jobs like crazy. He's had the highest UE rate even though he didn't inherit the mess Reagan did.

Now this thread was about Reaganomics and the concept of trickledown. If you can't discuss that, get off the thread.

 

[Listening]

Folks we are discussing Reaganomics and just what that meant.

We are not comparing to Bush, Clinton or Obama.

Please keep that in mind.

 

[EconChick]

First of all, you realize there are 6 unemployment rates, don't you? U1 through U-6. I can't believe you'd post a graph that doesn't even show you which rate you're trying to tell the audience you're referring to.

You're doing that either out of ignorance or deceit. Neither one is good.

Ok, I have to nitpick here. Besides the fact that you yourself have referenced the UE rate without specifying each one, there are NOT 6 unemployment rates. The U-1 and U-2 measure aspects of unemployment (long term unemployment and job losers) and the U4,5, and 6 include people who are not unemployed in the numerator, with the U-6 including millions of employed. They are measures of Underutilization.


Also, the current measures didn't come into being until 1994, and it's not possible to reconstruct earlier, so any graph or set prior to 1994 will necessarily be what is now the U-3 but was the U-5 from 1976-1983 and the U-5b from 1984-1993.

So he couldn't have been using any other rate, and, as you've demonstrated yourself, simply saying UE rate is understood as being the U-3

Once again, Pingy, you're completely off.

As you showed yourself, there's an apples to oranges problem, and no it is not assumed to be U-3.

You said it was not possible to reconstruct the graph before 1994 that looks comparable to today's U3-U6, but people extrapolate and do it all the time. They just make sure they're consistent on the following definitions.


*U3 – Unemployed as share of labor force (the official rate)3
• U4 – (Unemployed + discouraged) as share of (labor force + discouraged)4
• U5 – (Unemployed + discouraged + “marginally attached&#8221 as share of (labor force + discouraged + “marginally attached&#82215
• U6 – (Unemployed + discouraged + “marginally attached” + employed part-time for economic reasons) as share of (labor force + discouraged + “marginally attached&#8221




But now that we've gotten this meaningless piss ant point of yours addressed, what does it have to do with my bigger point that Reagan brought down high interest rates, high unemployment rates, and high inflation? He decimated the Soviet Union and had high growth.

It doesn't change that point in the least.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Damn, was post #30 such a stinking turd that no one has anything to say about it? You know how hard it is to dig up longitudinal data like that?

At least tell me the analysis blows and why.