Is This The 1970s All Over?

[Greenbeard]

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan.

Scroll down to November and December of 1982.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan.

Scroll down to November and December of 1982.

Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?

Please show me anything that looks like 10.4% unemployment.

 

[topspin]

Bigred couldn't cut it in a community college tree watching program. A gov tit job. If your waiting for intelligent debate from him it'll be a long wait.

 

[Greenbeard]

Please show me anything that looks like 10.4% unemployment.

Notice how what you're looking at has one number for each year? That means it's an average and thus won't reflect the highest unemployment rate reached in that year (in fact if you look really closely, you might even catch the title of that table: "Annual average unemployment rate").

I gave you the month-by-month unemployment numbers which show that unemployment did indeed top out at 10.8% in November and December of 1982.

 

[rightwinger]

The economy sucked under Carter, with massive job loss in key industries. It sucks under Obama, with massive job loss in key industries.
A distinction without a difference. I stand by what I wrote.

How do you explain the 10.8% unemployment rate under Reagan, two years into his presidency?

Carter unemployment was 7.2% when he left office...it soared under Reagan

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan. Top rate was 9.7%, about what Obama has now. Difference is under Reagan it dropped to 5.5% when he left office due to his great policies that created jobs. Obama's policies have created stagnant to rising unemployment. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is people have been discouraged from even looking.

You are entiltled to your own opinion Rabbi, you are not entitled to your own facts.....

Opinion: Obama, Reagan and the economy - Frank J. Donatelli - POLITICO.com

But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.

Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982.

So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession (which was not as deep as the Bush Recession).

 

[boedicca]

It's worse. We didn't have deficit spending at 10% of GDP. SS was more solvent as the ratio of workers to retirees was higher. Medicare was also in better shape.

As bad as the 70s were, we didn't inflict the enormous structural damage to the economy that Obamanomics has done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you explain the 10.8% unemployment rate under Reagan, two years into his presidency?

Carter unemployment was 7.2% when he left office...it soared under Reagan

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan. Top rate was 9.7%, about what Obama has now. Difference is under Reagan it dropped to 5.5% when he left office due to his great policies that created jobs. Obama's policies have created stagnant to rising unemployment. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is people have been discouraged from even looking.

You are entiltled to your own opinion Rabbi, you are not entitled to your own facts.....

Opinion: Obama, Reagan and the economy - Frank J. Donatelli - POLITICO.com

But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.

Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982.

So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession (which was not as deep as the Bush Recession).

"So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession"
liberals have this thing for blaming other when it's their own damn fault. Reagan had a recession? Some how I missed that one but I have read about it in those liberal talking point articles.

 

[uscitizen]

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan. Top rate was 9.7%, about what Obama has now. Difference is under Reagan it dropped to 5.5% when he left office due to his great policies that created jobs. Obama's policies have created stagnant to rising unemployment. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is people have been discouraged from even looking.

You are entiltled to your own opinion Rabbi, you are not entitled to your own facts.....

Opinion: Obama, Reagan and the economy - Frank J. Donatelli - POLITICO.com

But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.

Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982.

So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession (which was not as deep as the Bush Recession).

"So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession"
liberals have this thing for blaming other when it's their own damn fault. Reagan had a recession? Some how I missed that one but I have read about it in those liberal talking point articles.

And Reagan had under a 1 trillion defecit when he took office. What was it when he left office?
Did he spend his way out of high unemployment?
Or did he just spend?

 

[Madeline]

It's worse. We didn't have deficit spending at 10% of GDP. SS was more solvent as the ratio of workers to retirees was higher. Medicare was also in better shape.

As bad as the 70s were, we didn't inflict the enormous structural damage to the economy that Obamanomics has done.

Obama is responsible for the baby boom generation/population growth patterns now?

Seriously, boedicca...people been warning us Social Security is upside down for at least twenty years. Where you been?

 

[Toro]

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan. Top rate was 9.7%, about what Obama has now.

Unemployment hit 10.8% under Reagan.

There is zero inflation now, but there might be inflation in the future, given the explosion in the monetary base.

The problem with political people is that when it happens in 2015 or 2017, they'll say "It's President ___________ fault!"

 

[Madeline]

Seems just as likely there will be deflation, Toro.

 

[uscitizen]

Deflation is causing inflation? Since we import so much of our "stuff"?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There was no 10.8% unemployment under Reagan. Top rate was 9.7%, about what Obama has now.

Unemployment hit 10.8% under Reagan.

There is zero inflation now, but there might be inflation in the future, given the explosion in the monetary base.

The problem with political people is that when it happens in 2015 or 2017, they'll say "It's President ___________ fault!"

So when was Reagan sworn in as President?
OH and blame BUOOOOOSH

 

[Madeline]

Stop that, uscitizen. You're making my ears itch.

*Laughs*

 

[Toro]

You are entiltled to your own opinion Rabbi, you are not entitled to your own facts.....

Opinion: Obama, Reagan and the economy - Frank J. Donatelli - POLITICO.com



So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession (which was not as deep as the Bush Recession).

"So it took Reagan two years before he began to reverse his recession"
liberals have this thing for blaming other when it's their own damn fault. Reagan had a recession? Some how I missed that one but I have read about it in those liberal talking point articles.

And Reagan had under a 1 trillion defecit when he took office. What was it when he left office?
Did he spend his way out of high unemployment?
Or did he just spend?

Up until that point, Reagan presided over the biggest peacetime deficit in the history of the United States.

Of course, Rabbi recently wrote that the budget deficit was the lowest since WWII under Reagan, so you have to take what he writes with a grain of salt.

 

[Toro]

Seems just as likely there will be deflation, Toro.

We have deflation now. The government's response, particularly the Fed's, has been massively inflationary. The issue is whether or not the Fed will be able to withdraw their injections of reserves into the financial system soon enough to prevent inflation. I don't believe they will. In fact, I think in the future the government will tacitly endorse inflation to deal with the massive liabilities that will begin to overwhelm the government in the future.

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems just as likely there will be deflation, Toro.

We have deflation now. The government's response, particularly the Fed's, has been massively inflationary. The issue is whether or not the Fed will be able to withdraw their injections of reserves into the financial system soon enough to prevent inflation. I don't believe they will. In fact, I think in the future the government will tacitly endorse inflation to deal with the massive liabilities that will begin to overwhelm the government in the future.

Factually wrong. Of course coming from the guy who says the US housing bubble was caused by the South Africans, what can you expect.
The inflation numbers are still positive. There is a fear of deflation. We have entered a period of stagdeflation, marked by no growth except larger gov't deficits and steadily eroding prices. Obama's actions will help this process along, removing anything dynamic in this economy in favor of propping up old industries dominated by unions.

 

[Greenbeard]

The inflation numbers are still positive. ... We have entered a period of stagdeflation

 

[The Rabbi]

The inflation numbers are still positive. ... We have entered a period of stagdeflation

Both true.

 

[Madeline]

Seems just as likely there will be deflation, Toro.

We have deflation now. The government's response, particularly the Fed's, has been massively inflationary. The issue is whether or not the Fed will be able to withdraw their injections of reserves into the financial system soon enough to prevent inflation. I don't believe they will. In fact, I think in the future the government will tacitly endorse inflation to deal with the massive liabilities that will begin to overwhelm the government in the future.

Factually wrong. Of course coming from the guy who says the US housing bubble was caused by the South Africans, what can you expect.
The inflation numbers are still positive. There is a fear of deflation. We have entered a period of stagdeflation, marked by no growth except larger gov't deficits and steadily eroding prices. Obama's actions will help this process along, removing anything dynamic in this economy in favor of propping up old industries dominated by unions.

Where do you get this stuff, The Rabbi? It reads like economic analysis as performed by monkeys.

I dun suppose you have a fact or two....not that I even know wtf your premise is.

How can we have "stagdeflation"? WTF is that, anyway? Are you sure you are hearing talk radio correctly?