Are You Scared Yet? Read this!

[NYcarbineer]

3. The economic benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

This is 100% myth. Not reality.

In reality the economic recovery that occurred in Reagan's era had almost nothing to do with any policy beyond the monetary policy of Volcker at the Fed.

Because Gold and the dollar essentially self corrected, and the monetary policy of the time was extremely conservative the economy benefited from a nearly perfect correction to the imbalances that caused the recession.

If an economy in recession with sound fundamentals benefits from correction to the causative imbalances a robust recovery is the norm, not the exception. That's the very definition of boom-bust cycles.

Extraneous tax policies etc had jack shit to do with it.

You can believe otherwise, you can erect fascinating rationales backed by studies, data, scholarly analysis and idealism but the reality is that Reagan was lucky after he was unlucky. His policies had almost nothing to do with causing or correcting the epic recession of his era.

And the same was true of Jimmy Carter.

Nixon on the other hand was generally responsible for the whole enchilada. He took the US off the gold standard. The rest was inevitable.

Economies come out of recessions because of the business cycle, which will do its thing whether presidents interfere or not.

 

[RallyxPoint]

To whom do we owe this money?
What happens if we default?

China?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[It is a bald faced lie that Carter was responsible for the econ downturn Reagan inherited.

This the GDP growth rate that Reagan 'inherited', and where it went:

 

[william the wie]

LC is right. Reagan did give Volcker valuable political cover and did bring the Cold War to a faster less expensive end but that is about it. His revival of the 1920s GOP mantra of tax cuts may or may not have been marginally useful but Fed policy and the decision to outspend the Soviet Union on defense was of much greater importance.

 

[loosecannon]

[It is a bald faced lie that Carter was responsible for the econ downturn Reagan inherited.

This the GDP growth rate that Reagan 'inherited', and where it went:

actually no it isn't The chart covers 2006-2010.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that PC's evidence does not lead up to her conclusion: do your own figures, folks.

Yes, but her posts are longer than yours, so she must be smarter.

 

[editec]

The ENTUIRE industrialized world is in deep debt.

Yet none of us ask ourselves how that happened.

Specially, none of us wonder where the people who lent us the money got it to lend to us in the first place.


Now think about that....just think about it.

Everything works, the factiories are in place, the farms still work, but somehow we're in debt to people who don't work in factories and don't grow food.,

I'll ask again...where did THEY get the money that we needed to borrow in order for us to get in debt?

If you tell me that the bankers got that money fromn our savings, then they lent it to our governments, then you're STILL a tool and you're still always going to be a slave to the system.

Here's a thought...it is not possible for the masters to have lent the REST OF THE WORLD all this money they claim we owe them.

Money, folks, is an illusion.

And this debt? Also an illusion.

The world of finance has been an ongoing SWINDLE ever since governments and bankers got into bed together.

I'll say it again for those of you who are so steeped in the swindle that you cannot get it,

EVERYTHING STILL WORKS, but somehow we don't have enough money to make it all work together.

If you cannot understand why the above is impossible (unless somebody is bullshitting somebody) you need to keep thinking about it until you do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

That's because you are a bonehead...or, let's be kind and understand that you have not studied the respective eras.

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.

You are SO full of shit. I know more about the Reagan era than you can ever cut and paste in a week.

Let's go back to the relevant point. Reagan increased the debt by 190%. You labeled Clinton a failure for increasing the debt, using your cockeyed calculations, by 41%. And yet you want to praise Reagan for more than quadrupling that number.

Reagan promised to balance the budget under a clinically insane formula of

cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and cutting the rest of government to make up the difference. Because the first two are politically easy, Reagan did them. Because the third is politically difficult, he failed. The consequence was a massive explosion of deficit spending.

And btw Volcker was not 'Reaganomics'. Volcker was appointed by Carter and the Fed does not get its marching orders from the president.

Your language suggests you are losiing...badly.

Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:
• Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).
• After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.
• Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).
• Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).
• Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.
In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families

 

[PoliticalChic]

Time for your remedial, Carby..

1. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion, which includes the dough he swiped from the Social Security Trust Fund...and replaced with an I.O.U. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

2. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?

Here's how: BOGUS.


Now, unless you are an expert in accounting, or have spent the time studying same, I can understand how the pols have been able to pull the wool over your eyes...

and I would be wlling to explain how the gov uses their sleight-of-hand to keep you in the dark...but suffice it to say that if you understand that the debt- the total debt went up
forty one percent!!! over Clinton's term, then you will understand that it is an absolute lie to claim that he ran an actual surplus.

What Bush Sr and Clinton inherited from Reagan is DEBT. Years of running deficits accumulate and add to the DEBT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the website Historical Tables, go to left ledger> Past Budgets > Fiscal Year 2000 > A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2000
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline

In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. The turnaround from deficit to surplus can be attributed to fiscal discipline and strong economic growth. The change from deficit to surplus is an important milestone.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year- just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surplus, over the years.

The Government incurred its first deficit in 1792, and it generated 70 annual deficits between 1900 and 1997.

For most of the Nation's history, deficits were the result of either wars or recessions. Wars necessitated major increases in military spending, while recessions reduced Federal tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

The Government generated deficits during the War of 1812, the recession of 1837, the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, and World War I. Once the war ended or the economy began to grow, the Government followed its deficits with budget surplus, with which it paid down the debt.

Deficits returned in 1931 and remained for the rest of the decade-due to the Great Depression and the spending associated with President Roosevelt's New Deal. Then, World War II forced the Nation to spend unprecedented amounts on defense and to incur corresponding unprecedented deficits.

Since then-with Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses-the Government has balanced its books only nine times, most recently last year.

Nevertheless, the deficits before 1981 paled in comparison to what followed. That year, the Government cut income tax rates and greatly increased defense spending, but it did not cut non-defense programs enough to make up the difference. Also, the recession of the early 1980s reduced Federal revenues, increased Federal outlays for unemployment insurance and similar programs that are closely tied to economic conditions, and forced the Government to pay interest on more national debt at a time when interest rates were high. As a result, the deficit soared.

Surplus and Debt

If the Government incurs a surplus, it generally repays debt held by the public.

Federal borrowing involves the sale, to the public, of notes and bonds of varying sizes and time periods until maturity. The cumulative amount of borrowing from the public-i.e., the debt held by the public-is the most important measure of Federal debt because it is what the Government has borrowed in the private markets over the years, and it determines how much the Government pays in interest to the public.

Debt held by the public was $3.7 trillion at the end of 1998-roughly the net effect of deficits and surplus over the last 200 years. Debt held by the public does not include debt the Government owes itself-the total of all trust fund surplus and deficits over the years, like the Social Security surplus, which the law says must be invested in Federal securities.

Because of the progress in eliminating the budget deficit, the debt held by the public has been reduced for the first time in 29 years.

I did a little emphasizing.

I think you mean pleading.

The debt is the total debt...not the one an administration chooses to emphasize.

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's your word for the day: context

Post #64:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

If you are still confused, refer to post #72

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a...100% dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 

[loosecannon]

LC is right. Reagan did give Volcker valuable political cover and did bring the Cold War to a faster less expensive end but that is about it. His revival of the 1920s GOP mantra of tax cuts may or may not have been marginally useful but Fed policy and the decision to outspend the Soviet Union on defense was of much greater importance.

The ENTUIRE industrialized world is in deep debt.

Yet none of us ask ourselves how that happened.

Specially, none of us wonder where the people who lent us the money got it to lend to us in the first place.


Now think about that....just think about it.

Everything works, the factiories are in place, the farms still work, but somehow we're in debt to people who don't work in factories and don't grow food.,

I'll ask again...where did THEY get the money that we needed to borrow in order for us to get in debt?

If you tell me that the bankers got that money fromn our savings, then they lent it to our governments, then you're STILL a tool and you're still always going to be a slave to the system.

Here's a thought...it is not possible for the masters to have lent the REST OF THE WORLD all this money they claim we owe them.

Money, folks, is an illusion.

And this debt? Also an illusion.

The world of finance has been an ongoing SWINDLE ever since governments and bankers got into bed together.

I'll say it again for those of you who are so steeped in the swindle that you cannot get it,

EVERYTHING STILL WORKS, but somehow we don't have enough money to make it all work together.

If you cannot understand why the above is impossible (unless somebody is bullshitting somebody) you need to keep thinking about it until you do.

the same was basically true of the Great Depression.

 

[william the wie]

The con game of central banking (the Fed) and fractional reserve banking is coming to an end due to better information technology.

 

[loosecannon]

I wish I had your optimism Willie.

 

[william the wie]

I wish I had your optimism Willie.

I wish I had the optimism you think I have. The transition is going to be as rough as a cob.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think that one will be OK if (1) he has little debt, (2) capital assets, and (3) continuing cash flow, one will be OK. In fact, one might be in a very happy place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a...100% dissolution of the Soviet Union.

lol, I guess that's why the Republicans don't care about another START treaty, because the Russians are no longer a threat.

Why are you changing the subject btw?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Classic PC, she start's losing, so she drags a red herring across the argument. She is not doing well here at all, as usual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's because you are a bonehead...or, let's be kind and understand that you have not studied the respective eras.

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.

You are SO full of shit. I know more about the Reagan era than you can ever cut and paste in a week.

Let's go back to the relevant point. Reagan increased the debt by 190%. You labeled Clinton a failure for increasing the debt, using your cockeyed calculations, by 41%. And yet you want to praise Reagan for more than quadrupling that number.

Reagan promised to balance the budget under a clinically insane formula of

cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and cutting the rest of government to make up the difference. Because the first two are politically easy, Reagan did them. Because the third is politically difficult, he failed. The consequence was a massive explosion of deficit spending.

And btw Volcker was not 'Reaganomics'. Volcker was appointed by Carter and the Fed does not get its marching orders from the president.

Your language suggests you are losiing...badly.

Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:
• Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).
• After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.
• Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).
• Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).
• Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.
In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families

The economy went into a 16 month recession right after Bush's tax cuts. Deficits exploded to unprecedented peacetime levels after Reagan's tax cuts. We STILL carry the debt Reagan piled onto us.

And when you call someone a bonehead, and then 2 posts later proclaim that language suggests the other guy is losing badly...

...are you really that stupid, or is this some sort of act?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Bush Sr and Clinton inherited from Reagan is DEBT. Years of running deficits accumulate and add to the DEBT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the website Historical Tables, go to left ledger> Past Budgets > Fiscal Year 2000 > A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2000
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline

In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. The turnaround from deficit to surplus can be attributed to fiscal discipline and strong economic growth. The change from deficit to surplus is an important milestone.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year- just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surplus, over the years.

The Government incurred its first deficit in 1792, and it generated 70 annual deficits between 1900 and 1997.

For most of the Nation's history, deficits were the result of either wars or recessions. Wars necessitated major increases in military spending, while recessions reduced Federal tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

The Government generated deficits during the War of 1812, the recession of 1837, the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, and World War I. Once the war ended or the economy began to grow, the Government followed its deficits with budget surplus, with which it paid down the debt.

Deficits returned in 1931 and remained for the rest of the decade-due to the Great Depression and the spending associated with President Roosevelt's New Deal. Then, World War II forced the Nation to spend unprecedented amounts on defense and to incur corresponding unprecedented deficits.

Since then-with Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses-the Government has balanced its books only nine times, most recently last year.

Nevertheless, the deficits before 1981 paled in comparison to what followed. That year, the Government cut income tax rates and greatly increased defense spending, but it did not cut non-defense programs enough to make up the difference. Also, the recession of the early 1980s reduced Federal revenues, increased Federal outlays for unemployment insurance and similar programs that are closely tied to economic conditions, and forced the Government to pay interest on more national debt at a time when interest rates were high. As a result, the deficit soared.

Surplus and Debt

If the Government incurs a surplus, it generally repays debt held by the public.

Federal borrowing involves the sale, to the public, of notes and bonds of varying sizes and time periods until maturity. The cumulative amount of borrowing from the public-i.e., the debt held by the public-is the most important measure of Federal debt because it is what the Government has borrowed in the private markets over the years, and it determines how much the Government pays in interest to the public.

Debt held by the public was $3.7 trillion at the end of 1998-roughly the net effect of deficits and surplus over the last 200 years. Debt held by the public does not include debt the Government owes itself-the total of all trust fund surplus and deficits over the years, like the Social Security surplus, which the law says must be invested in Federal securities.

Because of the progress in eliminating the budget deficit, the debt held by the public has been reduced for the first time in 29 years.

I did a little emphasizing.

I think you mean pleading.

The debt is the total debt...not the one an administration chooses to emphasize.

Wise up.

Then you agree that Clinton came closer to balancing the budget than Reagan did, or Bush Sr. did, or G W Bush did,

even if by using your pet numbers, it wasn't technically balanced?

You can't answer that question can you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Classic PC, she start's losing, so she drags a red herring across the argument. She is not doing well here at all, as usual.

She suffers the very common problem of being emotionally invested in beliefs that are not supported by facts, and is thus prevented by that emotion from being able to cope with the objective facts that refute the belief.