Reagan Unumployment rate was 10.8% at the End of 82

[PoliticalChic]

Rachel Maddow? Really?
Why anyone would listen to that ugly dyke is beyond me.

Yeah. I'd consider the longest peace-time expansion post WW2 in history to be a complete and total failure. Failure of the Democratic Party's ideology that is.
Why is the Left so fixated on Reagan??

See, now, Rab...you forced me to say this: I find Maddow well prepared, and professional if way to the left...

...I have often wished that she and Liz Cheney had a point-counterpoint show!

The sparks would fly...it'd be on my Tivo!

 

[asterism]

The best you can do to support your argument is a video by that guy Mr. Maddow? He's a shining example of how people can get educated out of their common sense.

lol Wether you jerk off to her or not Paul Krugman is on the money.

The same Paul Krugman who won a Nobel (1) for a theory that he vehemently opposes (2)? The same Paul Krugman who advised Enron during their worst period of financial scandal (3)? The same Paul Krugman said that the stimulus would work but didn't go far enough because unemployment would stay at 7.3%? He also predicted that without the stimulus unemployment would average at 9% (4). Wrong on that one too.

Yeah, right on the money all right.


references:

1
2
3
4

 

[Truthseeker420]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show: Paul Krugman on the Failure of Reagonomics

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. Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

2. The 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

I have to go but will explain how those figures are misleading later.

 

[asterism]

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show: Paul Krugman on the Failure of Reagonomics

The results of the implementation? Yes. Spending cuts were supposed to be part of the deal. The same problem exists in Obama's Trickle Up Unemployment, except it was known that there would be no spending cuts.

Trickle Up Unemployment? please expound on that.

On edit------


Updated version:

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Are you aware that the principles of Reaganomics are one of the primary reasons for the greatest period of economic growth in history up until the great recession hit? Which was caused by poor management, inefective regulators, and really bad governing from both political parties?

Man, that was funny. Anyway, you guys can delude yourselves all you want, but here's somebody who disagrees with you: David Stockman, a former Budget Director for...wait for it...Ronald Reagan.

Here are some snips from an opinion piece he wrote. The full article can be read here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

~snip~

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.

Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.

~snip~

Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.

 

[whitehall]

Will you lefties ever stop whining? After a complete failure of the last two years of total democrat control we have %10 unemployment, looming inflation and gas prices skyrocketing. Democrats even admit that government spending needs to be controlled. What does that say about their past agenda? Everything Obama allegedly stands for is a total lie. He denies American companies oil exploration and he tells the Soros invested Brazil Oil Co. "we want to be your best costomer". He bows to every despot on the planet and apologizes for America's affluence and he vows to bring America back down from a super power to a 3rd world country. The arrogant bas*tard tells us to get smaller cars if gas prices are too high and meanwhile diesel is around $5.00. Does he know that trucks run on diesel and we need trucks to get products to market> Does he even make the connection between high fuel prices and high commodity prices? Obama is an empty suit and every leftie who supports his failed policies is a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reaganomics worked very well until the 90's, that's when the great migration of American light manufactoring and lumber industries jobs were moved overseas, by wall st and our elected officials.
So in theory reaganomics can work if you have the jobs to support it. But we don't have that anymore right now do we. And the argument that the rich create jobs is pure B/S. They are investing overseas like everyone else with money. The more you shrink the middle class the more you screw up this nation.
Take your statistics and wipe your nose with them, Clinton coudn't balance the budget without the republican tax hikes in the 80's and 90's. That's only part of the problem we face today.

1. "But we don't have that anymore right now do we. "

a. Taken as a total of goods and services, the US is more than twice as prolific as the next nearest nation.About the International Trade Administration


b. Germany's primary economic problem isn't that they country exports too little, but that its own consumers don't spend enough, which holds back its domestic service sectors, many economists say.
"Service sectors are more important for jobs that export industries, which tend to be very capital-intensive," says Elga Bartsch, an economist at Morgan Stanley in London.
—Brian Blackstone and Andrew Batson contributed to this article
China Dethrones Germany as Top Goods Exporter - WSJ.com


c. Who’s the World’s Largest Exporter?
by John Murphy
The World Trade Organization (WTO) today issued its World Trade Report 2010, an annual publication that offers definitive statistics on international trade. In recent months, media reports have widely described China as the world’s largest exporter, but today’s report indicates that the United States remained the world’s largest exporter of goods and services through 2009. China has indeed overtaken the United States and Germany to become the world’s largest exporter of merchandise.
Exports in 2009, billions of U.S. dollars
Merchandise Commercial
Services Total
U.S. 1,057 470 1,527
Germany 1,121 215 1,336
China 1,202 129 1,331

Source: WTO, World Trade Report 2010, pp 28-29.
Who

d. Consider the complete numbers for 2008 from the World Trade Organization (WTO), specifically, from its World Trade Report 2008 issued in July 2009. This source offers globally comparable data, and it shows the United States was the world’s largest exporter of goods and services in 2008:
Exports, billions of dollars, 2008 (pages 13-14)
Who

Do you still have the 'sniffles'?


2. "Clinton coudn't balance the budget without the republican tax hikes in the 80's and 90's."
If by the Reagan-Greenspan Social Security Commission, you are correct. Clinton used the funds in the so-called 'lock box.'

 

[boedicca]

Response for the OP: No.

The Left continues to spread this nonsensical meme in order to blame the failures of Progressive and Keynesian centralized planning upon Free Market ideology.

 

[confussed]

Every President faces their own unique problems, Things hit the fan big time under Jimmy Carter.
Home interest loans at 23%. Humanity is a work in progress, and boy do we make a lot of mistakes.
What starts to kill America was Reagans deregulation of the banks and turning Walls St into a leaglized casino. As the banks became more deregulated, the less interest was paid on your savings just look at at today,Captalism has become greedy and the little guy suffers. We went from 7% compouned monthly to 1.25%annual percentage yield. 84% return on your savings in one year to 1.25% see the difference. Reaganomics killed the rule of 7's and the small saver lost. God bless America where the goverment and banks can screw you and you end up liking it. I don'tlike. And neither should you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman?? He's consistently wrong out in the trillions column

 

[JWBooth]

Stockman bailed when the program wasn't tried. Some of the spending cuts went through initially, but with the followup tax increases negated their effect. None of the necessary spending cuts were ever implemented.

Its impossible to say that Trickle down/Reaganomics was a failure. It was never tried.

Why, thirty years later, is this a necessary point of contention with libs?
Even had it been tried and then found wanting, it does not negate the failure of their inflate and spend ever expanding government method.

 

[Jarhead]

Every President faces their own unique problems, Things hit the fan big time under Jimmy Carter.
Home interest loans at 23%. Humanity is a work in progress, and boy do we make a lot of mistakes.
What starts to kill America was Reagans deregulation of the banks and turning Walls St into a leaglized casino. As the banks became more deregulated, the less interest was paid on your savings just look at at today,Captalism has become greedy and the little guy suffers. We went from 7% compouned monthly to 1.25%annual percentage yield. 84% return on your savings in one year to 1.25% see the difference. Reaganomics killed the rule of 7's and the small saver lost. God bless America where the goverment and banks can screw you and you end up liking it. I don'tlike. And neither should you.

With FDIC insurance, depositing money in the bank is a ZERO risk investemnt. Theoretically, it should have a zero return. 1.5% is an excellent return on a zero risk investment.
Deregulating the banks and wall street was not the issue.
The issue was the greed of the investor. No one forced them to invest thier money...they did it becuase they wanted their money to make easy money for them.

Sure...you can say that government should enact reguilations so that the people are not premitted to allow their own greed to hurt them...but that is not what America is about.

America is about personal responsibility...and having a chance to do with your life what you want to.

 

[Bern80]

.......

Referring to the biggest imbecile in economics doesn't help your credibility. Krugman is nothing more than a government lickspittle. Furthermore, "trickle down" is simply a derogatory term for the free market. Anyone using the term is a communist.

The problem with bashers of trickle down is that they believe there is component of the theory that says good things are just supposed to happen to people with no effort on their own part. Unfortunately you really can't bash a theory for not providing what it never promised in the first place.

 

[Truthmatters]

Presidents And Prosperity - Forbes.com

Forbes has a nice breakdown of recent presidential numbers for comparison

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The best you can do to support your argument is a video by that guy Mr. Maddow? He's a shining example of how people can get educated out of their common sense.

Not a PROB!!!

Ronald Reagan's Records

* * *​

"The central concept of supply-side economics is that tax cuts cause economic growth. Tax cuts allow entrepreneurs to invest their tax savings, which creates higher productivity, jobs and profits. This, ironically, allows the entrepreneur and his new workers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates.

The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory."

THE RISE OF SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS​

* * *​

"Ronald Reagan was originally supported by right-wing entrepreneurs in California and elsewhere, including some protectionist textile industrialists, independent oil-men, arms producers, and small business owners. In his quest to unseat Gerald Ford from the presidency in 1976, Reagan failed to gain the blessing of other top business figures mainly because of his protectionist views. But by 1980, two developments had taken place: as we have seen, business had become more conservative in the areas of taxes, military spending, labor, and the environment; and Reagan himself, in order to gain conservative multinational business support, made some concessions. He backed away from defense of Taiwan toward the Trilateral China policy, he stopped his attacks on the Trilateral Commission, and he became a free trader. These adjustments in Reagan's positions opened the way for virtually all of U.S. business to support him. As a sign of this unified support, the media gave Reagan a positive image, ignoring the unreality and illogic of his program, which promised to cut taxes, increase military spending, preserve essential social spending, and balance the budget all at the same time.

In less than two years, the Reagan consensus cracked. The two main currents of Reagan's business support had ultimately incompatible goals. In the late 1970s, the Business Roundtable (including virtually all sectors of big business) conducted a major lobby for lower corporate taxes; at the same time the CPD mobilized for unprecedented peacetime military budget increases. The only way to reconcile these currents would be a large reduction in social spending, including the universally popular Social Security, which even Republicans could not touch for fear of losing public support. The result was that Reagan implemented the programs of both the Business Roundtable and the CPD, creating an unheard-of federal budget deficit."

The Ruling Elites from 1980 to 1986​

 

[Jarhead]

Presidents And Prosperity - Forbes.com

Forbes has a nice breakdown of recent presidential numbers for comparison

Interesting....but with all "reports" and "polls" I always like to see the "underlying data" as that is required to read the results properly.

So I hit the link that says..:

Click here for the complete underlying data

The result?

Page not found.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What starts to kill America was Reagans deregulation of the banks and turning Walls St into a leaglized casino.

The Glass/Steagal Act was repealed under Clinton in 1999. Do a little reading and you'll find that THAT was the start of the banking problems.
Glass

 

[The Rabbi]

Every President faces their own unique problems, Things hit the fan big time under Jimmy Carter.
Home interest loans at 23%. Humanity is a work in progress, and boy do we make a lot of mistakes.
What starts to kill America was Reagans deregulation of the banks and turning Walls St into a leaglized casino. As the banks became more deregulated, the less interest was paid on your savings just look at at today,Captalism has become greedy and the little guy suffers. We went from 7% compouned monthly to 1.25%annual percentage yield. 84% return on your savings in one year to 1.25% see the difference. Reaganomics killed the rule of 7's and the small saver lost. God bless America where the goverment and banks can screw you and you end up liking it. I don'tlike. And neither should you.

When did Reagan deregulate the banks? What bill was that?
No one ever got a 7%/month rate that either wasnt running a pawn shop or wasn't the victim of a Ponzi scheme. Rates have fallen as inflation has fallen. Pretty simple.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Are you aware that the principles of Reaganomics are one of the primary reasons for the greatest period of economic growth in history up until the great recession hit? Which was caused by poor management, inefective regulators, and really bad governing from both political parties?

Man, that was funny. Anyway, you guys can delude yourselves all you want, but here's somebody who disagrees with you: David Stockman, a former Budget Director for...wait for it...Ronald Reagan.

Here's another.....​

December 1981

The Education of David Stockman

 

[Oddball]

.......

Referring to the biggest imbecile in economics doesn't help your credibility. Krugman is nothing more than a government lickspittle. Furthermore, "trickle down" is simply a derogatory term for the free market. Anyone using the term is a communist.

The problem with bashers of trickle down is that they believe there is component of the theory that says good things are just supposed to happen to people with no effort on their own part. Unfortunately you really can't bash a theory for not proving what it never promised in the first place.

Nor can you bash it if it truly had never been tried....Even Stockman admits that there were no spending cuts, which were an important aspect of the program.

But perish the thought that niggling little facts as such be taken into consideration, as the liberoidals construct and burn down their strawmen.