Liberal Economics: Fable and Failure

[PoliticalChic]

1. Is big government a help, or a hindrance in running the economy?
Are the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the academic elites really capable of directing and correctly influencing the economy?


2. Hold the debates about minimum wage laws, the huge economic stimulus, student loan programs
and unending welfare policies....boondoggles all, .......but what about something as simple as unemployment compensation, and the nonstop extensions thereof?


a. The answer is, just as with the other feel-good Liberal fables, it does very much the opposite of what it intends.

Unemployment compensation policy causes, and extends, unemployment rates.





3. "Job openings are arguably one of the most important indicators of recovery in the labor market, as they reflect employers’ willingness to hire. The number of job openings has recovered steadily since the recession, yet through the end of 2013, the openings rate was still substantially below its pre-recession peak (see chart below).

Starting in January 2014, however, the number of job openings increased dramatically, up by 20 percent through June 2014, and job openings relative to employment jumped back to the peak of the previous expansion.

In this post, we argue that the expiration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program may have contributed to this rapid rise in 2014.




4. How can the end of such an important fiscal stimulus, which at face value could be a drag on consumption, help the labor market and boost job openings?
After all, one rationale for this program was to provide stimulus to a fragile economy. The mechanism that we offer as an explanation is based on firms’ response to UI and is not new.


5. In fact, the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model (Pissarides 2000, Mortensen and Pissarides 1994, andDiamond 1982), for which the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2010, predicts that increases in UI (unemployment insurance) generosity put upward pressure on wages since it becomes more expensive to lure people into work. As a consequence, firms anticipate lower profits and cut back job creation, which lowers the job finding rate and increases the unemployment rate. "
Liberty Street Economics





So.....by padding the lay-off's nest, the government is telling the unemployee to demand higher pay, or he won't come back to work.
As it restricts profits, firms cannot do so, and therefore, offer fewer jobs.

Liberal Economics: Fable and Failure

 

[sameech]

1. Is big government a help, or a hindrance in running the economy?
Are the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the academic elites really capable of directing and correctly influencing the economy?


2. Hold the debates about minimum wage laws, the huge economic stimulus, student loan programs
and unending welfare policies....boondoggles all, .......but what about something as simple as unemployment compensation, and the nonstop extensions thereof?


a. The answer is, just as with the other feel-good Liberal fables, it does very much the opposite of what it intends.

Unemployment compensation policy causes, and extends, unemployment rates.





3. "Job openings are arguably one of the most important indicators of recovery in the labor market, as they reflect employers’ willingness to hire. The number of job openings has recovered steadily since the recession, yet through the end of 2013, the openings rate was still substantially below its pre-recession peak (see chart below).

Starting in January 2014, however, the number of job openings increased dramatically, up by 20 percent through June 2014, and job openings relative to employment jumped back to the peak of the previous expansion.

In this post, we argue that the expiration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program may have contributed to this rapid rise in 2014.




4. How can the end of such an important fiscal stimulus, which at face value could be a drag on consumption, help the labor market and boost job openings?
After all, one rationale for this program was to provide stimulus to a fragile economy. The mechanism that we offer as an explanation is based on firms’ response to UI and is not new.


5. In fact, the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model (Pissarides 2000, Mortensen and Pissarides 1994, andDiamond 1982), for which the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2010, predicts that increases in UI (unemployment insurance) generosity put upward pressure on wages since it becomes more expensive to lure people into work. As a consequence, firms anticipate lower profits and cut back job creation, which lowers the job finding rate and increases the unemployment rate. "
Liberty Street Economics





So.....by padding the lay-off's nest, the government is telling the unemployee to demand higher pay, or he won't come back to work.
As it restricts profits, firms cannot do so, and therefore, offer fewer jobs.

Liberal Economics: Fable and Failure

This has been observed in europe before. Regardless, the fundamental flaw in national legislation is that it seldom accounts for regional variances. There are places outside Chicago and New York and LA where there just are not a lot of new jobs as the employer pool has shrunk drastically in recent decades. The problem is not with liberalism, but in federalization leading to sloppy one-size fits all solutions. A mill town in Pennsylvania, Redhook in NYC, a yuppie LA suburb, etc all have different issues to deal with when it comes to things as fundamental as employment issues.

 

[Impenitent]

1. Is big government a help, or a hindrance in running the economy?
Are the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the academic elites really capable of directing and correctly influencing the economy?


2. Hold the debates about minimum wage laws, the huge economic stimulus, student loan programs
and unending welfare policies....boondoggles all, .......but what about something as simple as unemployment compensation, and the nonstop extensions thereof?


a. The answer is, just as with the other feel-good Liberal fables, it does very much the opposite of what it intends.

Unemployment compensation policy causes, and extends, unemployment rates.





3. "Job openings are arguably one of the most important indicators of recovery in the labor market, as they reflect employers’ willingness to hire. The number of job openings has recovered steadily since the recession, yet through the end of 2013, the openings rate was still substantially below its pre-recession peak (see chart below).

Starting in January 2014, however, the number of job openings increased dramatically, up by 20 percent through June 2014, and job openings relative to employment jumped back to the peak of the previous expansion.

In this post, we argue that the expiration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program may have contributed to this rapid rise in 2014.




4. How can the end of such an important fiscal stimulus, which at face value could be a drag on consumption, help the labor market and boost job openings?
After all, one rationale for this program was to provide stimulus to a fragile economy. The mechanism that we offer as an explanation is based on firms’ response to UI and is not new.


5. In fact, the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model (Pissarides 2000, Mortensen and Pissarides 1994, andDiamond 1982), for which the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2010, predicts that increases in UI (unemployment insurance) generosity put upward pressure on wages since it becomes more expensive to lure people into work. As a consequence, firms anticipate lower profits and cut back job creation, which lowers the job finding rate and increases the unemployment rate. "
Liberty Street Economics





So.....by padding the lay-off's nest, the government is telling the unemployee to demand higher pay, or he won't come back to work.
As it restricts profits, firms cannot do so, and therefore, offer fewer jobs.

Liberal Economics: Fable and Failure

Before you declare victory over unemployment, remember that job openings are still less than half the number unemployed.

Given that the reason Republicans are against unemployment compensation is that it is a supposed disincentive against returning to work, how is returning to work even possible for about 5 million people?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Is big government a help, or a hindrance in running the economy?
Are the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the academic elites really capable of directing and correctly influencing the economy?


2. Hold the debates about minimum wage laws, the huge economic stimulus, student loan programs
and unending welfare policies....boondoggles all, .......but what about something as simple as unemployment compensation, and the nonstop extensions thereof?


a. The answer is, just as with the other feel-good Liberal fables, it does very much the opposite of what it intends.

Unemployment compensation policy causes, and extends, unemployment rates.





3. "Job openings are arguably one of the most important indicators of recovery in the labor market, as they reflect employers’ willingness to hire. The number of job openings has recovered steadily since the recession, yet through the end of 2013, the openings rate was still substantially below its pre-recession peak (see chart below).

Starting in January 2014, however, the number of job openings increased dramatically, up by 20 percent through June 2014, and job openings relative to employment jumped back to the peak of the previous expansion.

In this post, we argue that the expiration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program may have contributed to this rapid rise in 2014.




4. How can the end of such an important fiscal stimulus, which at face value could be a drag on consumption, help the labor market and boost job openings?
After all, one rationale for this program was to provide stimulus to a fragile economy. The mechanism that we offer as an explanation is based on firms’ response to UI and is not new.


5. In fact, the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides model (Pissarides 2000, Mortensen and Pissarides 1994, andDiamond 1982), for which the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2010, predicts that increases in UI (unemployment insurance) generosity put upward pressure on wages since it becomes more expensive to lure people into work. As a consequence, firms anticipate lower profits and cut back job creation, which lowers the job finding rate and increases the unemployment rate. "
Liberty Street Economics





So.....by padding the lay-off's nest, the government is telling the unemployee to demand higher pay, or he won't come back to work.
As it restricts profits, firms cannot do so, and therefore, offer fewer jobs.

Liberal Economics: Fable and Failure

Before you declare victory over unemployment, remember that job openings are still less than half the number unemployed.

Given that the reason Republicans are against unemployment compensation is that it is a supposed disincentive against returning to work, how is returning to work even possible for about 5 million people?

It is hard to decipher your position.
Mine is that unemployment compensation is counter productive.


And...I'm not the only one saying so...e.g., the OP.



6. "HKMM’s (Marcus Hagedorn, Fatih Karahan, Iourii Manovskii, and Kurt Mitman) findings suggest that UI extensions do put upward pressure on wages, reduce job openings, and raise unemployment. How large are the magnitudes? In what follows, we offer estimates of how much the expiration of EUC affected job creation.


More specifically, we take the data through January 2014 as given, and predict the evolution of the vacancy rate, assuming that the only change in the economy was the expiration of EUC.


There are many factors affecting employment, but our analysis suggests that the expiration of the EUC increased the willingness of firms to hire, leading to the large increase in job openings in the first half of 2014."
Liberty Street Economics




Yet, if up to Liberals,the benefits would go on and on.

 

[jillian]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

 

[Freemason9]

I still don't know what you mean by "liberal economics." The U.S. has only one economic system, and one political system. There is no real debate going on. I think you are referring to fiscal expenditure policies from year to year.

 

[Impenitent]

I still don't know what you mean by "liberal economics." The U.S. has only one economic system, and one political system. There is no real debate going on. I think you are referring to fiscal expenditure policies from year to year.

What she means is how all Presidents respond to an economic downturn.


"Whenever the economy falters and private-sector spending declines, they use the tax-and-spending system to inject more demand into the economy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan did precisely this, slashing taxes and increasing defense spending. Between 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush followed the same script, introducing three sets of tax cuts and starting two wars. In February, 2009, Barack Obama introduced his stimulus. The real policy debate isn’t about Keynesianism versus the free market, it is about magnitudes and techniques: How much stimulus is necessary? And how should it be divided between government spending and tax cuts?"

Reagan Bush and Obama We Are All Still Keynesians - The New Yorker

In other words, if we had a Republican President, there
would no objection from the congress for any forms of economic stimulus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

 

[Freemason9]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


Bet you wish Barack Hussein Obama had those numbers.

 

[Freemason9]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


Bet you wish Barack Hussein Obama had those numbers.

I honestly don't see much difference between presidents Obama and Reagan, except that Reagan empowered private ownership of news and information. Their rhetoric was different, of course, but their actual actions are similar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I still don't know what you mean by "liberal economics." The U.S. has only one economic system, and one political system. There is no real debate going on. I think you are referring to fiscal expenditure policies from year to year.

What she means is how all Presidents respond to an economic downturn.


"Whenever the economy falters and private-sector spending declines, they use the tax-and-spending system to inject more demand into the economy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan did precisely this, slashing taxes and increasing defense spending. Between 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush followed the same script, introducing three sets of tax cuts and starting two wars. In February, 2009, Barack Obama introduced his stimulus. The real policy debate isn’t about Keynesianism versus the free market, it is about magnitudes and techniques: How much stimulus is necessary? And how should it be divided between government spending and tax cuts?"

Reagan Bush and Obama We Are All Still Keynesians - The New Yorker

In other words, if we had a Republican President, there
would no objection from the congress for any forms of economic stimulus.

Too bad you know so little of American history.

Study President Harding's handling of a depression/recession before you embarrass yourself further.

Not-So-Great Depression Cato Institute

 

[PoliticalChic]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


Bet you wish Barack Hussein Obama had those numbers.

I honestly don't see much difference between presidents Obama and Reagan, except that Reagan empowered private ownership of news and information. Their rhetoric was different, of course, but their actual actions are similar.

That's because you're a moron.

 

[Freemason9]

given that rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time, i'm amused and bemused, PC. lol

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


Bet you wish Barack Hussein Obama had those numbers.

I honestly don't see much difference between presidents Obama and Reagan, except that Reagan empowered private ownership of news and information. Their rhetoric was different, of course, but their actual actions are similar.

That's because you're a moron.

No, you're angry because you're unattractive.

 

[Freemason9]

I still don't know what you mean by "liberal economics." The U.S. has only one economic system, and one political system. There is no real debate going on. I think you are referring to fiscal expenditure policies from year to year.

What she means is how all Presidents respond to an economic downturn.


"Whenever the economy falters and private-sector spending declines, they use the tax-and-spending system to inject more demand into the economy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan did precisely this, slashing taxes and increasing defense spending. Between 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush followed the same script, introducing three sets of tax cuts and starting two wars. In February, 2009, Barack Obama introduced his stimulus. The real policy debate isn’t about Keynesianism versus the free market, it is about magnitudes and techniques: How much stimulus is necessary? And how should it be divided between government spending and tax cuts?"

Reagan Bush and Obama We Are All Still Keynesians - The New Yorker

In other words, if we had a Republican President, there
would no objection from the congress for any forms of economic stimulus.

Too bad you know so little of American history.

Study President Harding's handling of a depression/recession before you embarrass yourself further.

Not-So-Great Depression Cato Institute

Sorry, but references to the policies of President Harding don't apply that well to the modern economic/social environment.

 

[boedicca]

Big Government only helps itself and its Cronies...at the expense of people who are self-reliant and just want to be left alone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. And, back to the point.....are these studies indicating that at the heart if Liberal governance is the view that producing lazy, unemployed folks is good????

If studies show that workers sit back and accept benefits until they run out, rather than accept work......

....do we really want to produce citizens who live at their leisure at the expense of their neighbors??????



Well....

a. At least 106 million Americans receive benefits from one or more of these programs. Sara Murray, “Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit,”
Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011, http://blogs.
wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-ofhouseholds-receive-some-government-benefit/.



b. 'None of this, of course, includes middleclass entitlements such as Medicare and
Social Security, which, while not designed specifically as anti-poverty programs, nevertheless represent transfer payments from the government.' Scribd

 

[Freemason9]

Big Government only helps itself and its Cronies...at the expense of people who are self-reliant and just want to be left alone.

This is quite possibly true, but it applies across political continuums.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm happy that you enjoyed the post..e.g., laughing out loud.

But I'd be even happier if you were correct in your post, e.g., "rightwingnut voodoo economics has failed each and every time."

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.
You could try to be....but you would be unsuccessful.


For example....the unmitigated success of President Reagan....

1. 1. 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)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team Team Ron Paul Hulk Hogan Jesus of Nazareth Chuck Norris Ronald Reagan John Wayne Thomas Jefferson Alex Jones Peyton Manning The Tuskegee Airmen Schiff REAL Americans and George W. Bush



Bet you feel stupid now, huh?

The Reagan numbers aren't impressive at all, considering that he (1) relied heavily upon federal deficit spending to achieve them, (2) economies emerging from deep cyclical recessions always improve relative to recessionary years, and (3) the prime interest rate is (supposedly) not dependent upon specific legislative actions.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.


Bet you wish Barack Hussein Obama had those numbers.

I honestly don't see much difference between presidents Obama and Reagan, except that Reagan empowered private ownership of news and information. Their rhetoric was different, of course, but their actual actions are similar.

That's because you're a moron.

No, you're angry because you're unattractive.

You are lucky to be born beautiful, unlike me - who was born to be a big liar!

 

[boedicca]

Big Government only helps itself and its Cronies...at the expense of people who are self-reliant and just want to be left alone.

This is quite possibly true, but it applies across political continuums.

Where did I mention politics, bub?