The truth about Reaganomics

[bigrebnc1775]

republicans just repete a lie untill people believe it

I notice you keep repeating the same post over and over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The truth about Reaganomics and Voodoo, shytteheads, if you're don telling how Reagan brought glastnost and perestroika to the USSR...Pub dupes!!

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--June 7, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

The Death of Keynesian Economics… Reagan’s 4th Year in Office: 7.75 GDP… Obama’s 4th Year in Office: 2.2 GDP | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Reagan exploded the debt.

And Obama has done just the opposite.

Doesn't matter because rw's are too damn dumb or maybe their brains have rotted from from too many hours sucking up to fux/lushbo/beck -

Whatever, the last thing they care about is FACTS.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

republicans just repete a lie untill people believe it

I notice you keep repeating the same post over and over.

Why don't you READ one of them?

Remember, admitting you have THE problem is the first step to recovery.

(Not that I think pubs and pots CAN recover. See, thing is, they really LIKE their ignorance. )

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see if I understand the "American" Left's attitude toward Reagan.

He build up the military and called for the defeat of the USSR but that was pointless because Gobry (who ran the USSR during Reagan's second term) had already called for the dismantling of the USSR including taking down the Berlin Wall all because that's what Dems in Congress wanted.

Is that about right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan exploded the debt.

And Obama has done just the opposite.

Doesn't matter because rw's are too damn dumb or maybe their brains have rotted from from too many hours sucking up to fux/lushbo/beck -

Whatever, the last thing they care about is FACTS.

Progressive are pathological liars.

Absolutely pathological liars

 

[Too Tall]

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

Smoke and mirrors. Reagan's supply side experiment only appears to have succeeded, because he radically increased the deficit, size of the federal workforce, and federal spending in general. His defense spending wound up resulting in one of the greatest defense contractor scandals in our history, i.e. Ill Winds, which was consultants creating a market, in collaboration with contractors and military procurement officials, in the trade of insider procurement document.

Reaganomics also included capricious deregulation that led directly to the S&L collapse, handing Bush I a severe recession and cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions. Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility also resulted in the devaluation of the dollar.

If you want to see real growth in American prosperity, you ought to look at Clinton. He raised taxes, mostly at the top rates, and that resulted in increased value of the dollar, attracted foreign investment, low unemployment, and among other things creating budget surpluses.

Bush II tried the same Reagan approach, without Reagan's flexibility, with an even worse result. Trillions of dollars of American wealth was lost due to Bush's policies.

Obama, has been reducing the size of the federal workforce and when the Bush tax cuts expire, we'll start seeing results similar to Clinton. The biggest problem in our economy today is the lack of recovery in housing and construction. Congress rebuffed Obama's attempts to invest more in infrastructure, that would provide immediate aid to the hardest hit of our industries. But as it stands, Obama's discretionary spending is at the lowest rates we've seen in a very long time.

But I really wonder how the right would react if Obama did what Reagan did with both the Amnesty program and his zero option proposal with the Soviets. I suspect your heads would explode and you'd further snarl yourselves into incohesion.

The Bush tax cuts aren't going to expire because even Obama knows better than to do anything that stupid. Everything else in your post is conjecture and/or Dem talking points.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

republicans just repete a lie untill people believe it

I notice you keep repeating the same post over and over.

Why don't you READ one of them?

Remember, admitting you have THE problem is the first step to recovery.

(Not that I think pubs and pots CAN recover. See, thing is, they really LIKE their ignorance. )

All I have heard is it's Bushes fault, no mention of the democratic controlled congress when the economy crashed in early 2008. And your forgetfulness about democrats screaming bloody murder ovewr bush requesting that freddy and fanny be regulated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reagan exploded the debt.

And Obama has done just the opposite.

Doesn't matter because rw's are too damn dumb or maybe their brains have rotted from from too many hours sucking up to fux/lushbo/beck -

Whatever, the last thing they care about is FACTS.

How high are you to accept that lie as truth?

 

[Too Tall]

JRK explain what that SEC doc means

I understand this part.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999.

And this part.

Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

 

[Steelplate]

the truth about Reaganomics is that it worked.....in the short term. When Reagan instituted it, the private sector played along....they did this in exchange for the busting of most private sector unions. Which, if all things would have been equal, it was a fair exchange.

However, some 30 years later...The private sector has gradually taken more and more, given back less and less, keep finding ways to circumvent paying decent wages, forcing their employees to pay for all or most of their benefits, lobbied and got "free trade agreements" to hold even more of the workforce hostage, and STILL are bawling their eyes out on a continual basis for more and more breaks.

It has gotten to the point where their ability to influence policy has handcuffed small businesses and their ability to compete. They have virtually the entirety of the Republican party in their grasp, and a good chunk of the Democratic Party too.

They are funding a massive PR/marketing/psyops campaign that paints everything that tries to fight their stranglehold as "the enemy".

Reaganomics was a good thing in it's day...but as a long term solution, it doesn't work. It doesn't take into account the neverending greedy and power hungry nature of our most compulsively ambitious people. They praise Reagonomics, which is part of that Marketing campaign that I spoke of, but they really have no plans on doing any "trickling". They'll be more than happy to have a country full of serfs fighting for their table scraps.

The more they get, the more they want...they are never satisfied, and now that they have virtually the whole world's population as potential slave labor employees, they have more power, more control and more money to buy our politicians than ever before. The little guy is fucked in this country....and the bastardization of the noble idea that Reagan put forth is largely to blame.

The problem with Reaganomics is that it relies on the honor of people who have none to do the right thing. It's kind of like having a fruit stand with an "honor system" cash box in a crime ridden neighborhood.

 

[Too Tall]

your republican ideas caused this mess

Are you talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

 

[Steelplate]

The truth about Reaganomics and Voodoo, shytteheads, if you're don telling how Reagan brought glastnost and perestroika to the USSR...Pub dupes!!

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--June 7, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

There's one thing that your data doesn't show....how the banking sector is in collusion with the private/big business sector. They ALL know that our spending power has been hit hard...what did the banks do? Make credit easy to get....Credit card offers poured into American households like flood water...the people, who couldn't afford to pay cash anymore, relied on plastic for that new refrigerator when the old one died...etc. Eventually, it started to become commonplace and people started charging much more than they should have.

I know, I know....personal responsibility. Which is true, but remember one thing...marketing works. "what's in your wallet?", "don't leave home without it", Visa...it's everywhere you want to be".....the list goes on....we are bombarded everyday with this shit and those offers keep on coming....tempting us on a daily basis.

They want us to use plastic, because they KNOW that most of our population is strapped and if we relied on "saving up" for our purchases, the economy would collapse....The banks want us to use plastic because then they got their filthy fucking hooks in us.

 

[Truthmatters]

your republican ideas caused this mess

Are you talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

yes and they were all republicans

 

[Truthmatters]

JRK explain what that SEC doc means

I understand this part.then explain it

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999.

And this part.

Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

and the CRA had nothing to do with the crash you fool

 

[Truthmatters]

8 fucking years

My source as you saw says 4 years.
Matching year 4 with year 4

that is NOT what the SEC document says

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

 

[bripat9643]

You failed to provide a source for your figures, so we can safely assume the source is some wacko fringe left-wing website. Rational people will ignore your post.

The truth about Reaganomics and Voodoo, shytteheads, if you're don telling how Reagan brought glastnost and perestroika to the USSR...Pub dupes!!

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--June 7, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[bripat9643]

your republican ideas caused this mess

Are you talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

yes and they were all republicans

Clinton signed it, dipshit.

 

[bripat9643]

and the CRA had nothing to do with the crash you fool

ROFL!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!