Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dragonlady]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

 

[Listening]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

Much like no Republican wanted to run against Clinton (and hence you got Dole), nobody in the democratic party wanted to run against Reagan.

The Market crashed in 1987 because of computer issues (or so they say) but was back in three months.

I believe the market tripled under Reagan (from memory).

There were no negative effects from his tax cuts in his second term.

That is simply a fairy tale.

 

[Dad2three]

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

These responses are remarkably similar to those from an earlier survey taken in 2012; not a single economist has substantially changed views since that earlier survey.

Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment

A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


These data paint a picture of a professional consensus, tempered by a degree of modesty that there’s much we don’t know. Indeed, the best research into the views of economists finds that this consensus is pervasive across a range of issues. Call it the hidden consensus in economics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/u...s-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Same tired worn out bullshit meme.

These are academics.

Those who supported in industry only stood to gain from it.

It's been a dismal failure. Obama has barely recovered the jobs we lost in 2008/2009. Nothing to crow about.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Don't read to well...do you.

How many jobs did Bush/Obama lose before it turned around ?

Well thanks to Dubya's policies, the 20000's were the weakest jobs decade in modern times. Is that what you want tto know? ALTHOUGH the TWO UNFUNDED tax cuts were supposed to spur job creation. Weird right? That Marxist, Socialist Obama has had 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since hitting Dubya's bottom, Feb 2010. Almost like 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy did nothing but cause US to ramp up debt and create a subprime crisis/recession.


That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama, is on track to overtake Reagan's ENTIRE 8 year total of 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs!

You are missing the point dickweed...he created nothing.

The economy is simply recovering what it lost.

Workforce participation is at a near all time low.

OK, The labor force participation talking point *shaking head*

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Yes. That is...straight-up repeating my post, right down to the part about a quarter still uncertain. Is this what agreement looks like where you come from? Are you convinced that a "liberal stimulus" has helped rather than harmed the economy, as most experts already are?

And do you remember this:

How long do you plan to avoid explaining this information?

Who has to explain it ?

Reagan inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

He's got it so cleaned up and turned around he breezes to re-election four years later.

Obama inherits a mess. You throw that on him.

Six years later, it's still a mess.

Love how his job creation is nothing more than the recover of the jobs bush lost.

My grandmother could have done that...and she's dead.

REAGAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

JAN 1981 7.5%

NOV 1984 7.2%


01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AVG ANNUAL U-RATE


1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0


PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, we've seen this maybe 200 times already.

Somehow, you think this proves a point.

Reagan not only inherited high unemployment, he also got interest rates that would kill today's economy.

Uhhh....Duhhhh...what do I do with that ?????? You'll figure it out.

He got things going and he gave people hope (and for good reason).

Wiped out Mondale....almost pitched a shutout....

But, I know...that doesn't count.

LOL

"Reagan not only inherited high unemployment"


REALLY????




Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.


Supply Side Economics


supply side did not work under reagan nor bush.the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.


Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


I THOUGH CARTER WAS HORRIBLE? LOL

Yes, we keep seeing this same stuff.

Somehow you think it proves something.

It doesn't. But you have not figured that out yet.

Or do you really think an economy can be described by a single independent and dependent variable.

lol.

Carter was a terrible president.

He handed Reagan huge interest rates. Everyone knew we were headed for tough times.

But in four years, things were going in the right direction. Everyone saw that. Hence his massive re-election in 1984.

Or did you forget we kicked Carter's ass out of office after four years ? Now why would that be ?

Hhhhmmmmmm......

And would you shut the **** up about 1982.

You want to blame all of Obama's ills on Bush (which many agree with) but you somehow think Reagan has to eat the shitstorm that Carter handed him.

Grow the **** up.

Want me to explain why the American people are stupid and have continually voted against their best interests, including electing Ronnie twice????

Good you didn't even TRY to dispute Carter had 9+ million jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 in 8 years in the private sector, ALL while tripling he debt

BUT WHEN WILL YOU DECIDE TO BE A MAN AND ACTUALLY KEEP ME ON IGNORE AS YOU'VE PROMISED (keep your promises), INSTEAD OF COMING IN A LITTLE AT A TIME AND SWIPING WITH YOUR OPINION, WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE, THEN RUNNING AWAY? lol

 

[Dad2three]

We threw Carter out in 1980. He got something like 42% of the popular vote. He was such a great leader.

We re-elected Reagan in 1984. Mondale got about 40% of the vote. Reagan hardly ran an ad on TV.

Figure that one out dickweed.

America elected Dubya TWICE. Yes, the US voters are stupid

 

[Dad2three]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

Much like no Republican wanted to run against Clinton (and hence you got Dole), nobody in the democratic party wanted to run against Reagan.

The Market crashed in 1987 because of computer issues (or so they say) but was back in three months.

I believe the market tripled under Reagan (from memory).

There were no negative effects from his tax cuts in his second term.

That is simply a fairy tale.

Except he lowered revenues, tripled debt and ignored Mr Grays warnings from 1984 on in the S&L crisis that crashed Poppy's economy, and prob a second term, oops


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

 

[Rusty Houser]

Government - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - should have no power to manipulate the economy in the first place.

Anyone respected in any way by the US gov't or US media is a brainwashed fool.

 

[Dragonlady]

Reagan's legacy is proof positive that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Actually, that could be the Republican Party's motto.

There's "Obamacare is a proven job killer"; "Tax cuts create jobs", "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction", Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

With Republicans, they keep repeating these lies and people believe them.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan's legacy is proof positive that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Actually, that could be the Republican Party's motto.

There's "Obamacare is a proven job killer"; "Tax cuts create jobs", "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction", Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

With Republicans, they keep repeating these lies and people believe them.

Since the 4th Estate went easy on Ronnie after the assignation attempt, Ronnie just shrugged his shoulders and told even bigger whoppers. The GOPerrs/conservatives picked up on that and have fine tuned it, via right wing think tanks and Faux 'News' bullshit

I miss honest conservatives like Goldwater

 

[Dad2three]

Government - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - should have no power to manipulate the economy in the first place.

Anyone respected in any way by the US gov't or US media is a brainwashed fool.

So you believe in fairy tales and myths. Got it

 

[Listening]

We threw Carter out in 1980. He got something like 42% of the popular vote. He was such a great leader.

We re-elected Reagan in 1984. Mondale got about 40% of the vote. Reagan hardly ran an ad on TV.

Figure that one out dickweed.

America elected Dubya TWICE. Yes, the US voters are stupid

Not like they elected Reagan. And Bush didn't unseat a sitting president.

Carter and Mondale were kittens compared to the total asswipes Gore and Kerry are.

 

[Listening]

Reagan's legacy is proof positive that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Actually, that could be the Republican Party's motto.

There's "Obamacare is a proven job killer"; "Tax cuts create jobs", "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction", Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

With Republicans, they keep repeating these lies and people believe them.

Since the 4th Estate went easy on Ronnie after the assignation attempt, Ronnie just shrugged his shoulders and told even bigger whoppers. The GOPerrs/conservatives picked up on that and have fine tuned it, via right wing think tanks and Faux 'News' bullshit

I miss honest conservatives like Goldwater

How, in the ****, would you know what anything honest is ?

 

[Listening]

Reagan's legacy is proof positive that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Actually, that could be the Republican Party's motto.

There's "Obamacare is a proven job killer"; "Tax cuts create jobs", "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction", Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

With Republicans, they keep repeating these lies and people believe them.

What legacy, moron ?

Reagan is sorely missed because he was a leader.

Reagan wasn't all that conservative.

Reagan simply gave this country back it's balls and it's backbone. He let us do the rest.

I know you enjoy Obama sticking a pacifier in your mouth.

As far as I am concerned..he can go **** himself.

Your argument is drifting because your supply of bullshit is running low.

 

[Listening]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

Much like no Republican wanted to run against Clinton (and hence you got Dole), nobody in the democratic party wanted to run against Reagan.

The Market crashed in 1987 because of computer issues (or so they say) but was back in three months.

I believe the market tripled under Reagan (from memory).

There were no negative effects from his tax cuts in his second term.

That is simply a fairy tale.

Except he lowered revenues, tripled debt and ignored Mr Grays warnings from 1984 on in the S&L crisis that crashed Poppy's economy, and prob a second term, oops


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

Oh Really.....I'm shocked.

Reagan took quite a beating while he was in office and wasn't all the popular in his second term.

So what ?

History has a way of letting things sort themselves out.

Harry Truman wasn't seen as all that good until about 10 years after he left office. History, and a long look back, tells us he did a lot of good stuff.

Sorry. But four years after he's out of office and having been savaged by the fucktards on the left. Reagan is now where he belongs and so is Carter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama,

actually dear Obama is a libcommie so does not create jobs. If you think he does please tell us a libcommie policy that would create rather than destroy jobs or admit you lack the IQ to be here.

 

[Faun]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

Much like no Republican wanted to run against Clinton (and hence you got Dole), nobody in the democratic party wanted to run against Reagan.

The Market crashed in 1987 because of computer issues (or so they say) but was back in three months.

I believe the market tripled under Reagan (from memory).

There were no negative effects from his tax cuts in his second term.

That is simply a fairy tale.

No, it's Clinton you're thinking of. That's when the market tripled. What Reagan tripled was the national debt.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Gee, what would an eminent economist like Krugman think ? Lol

 

[Paperman299]

That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama,

actually dear Obama is a libcommie so does not create jobs. If you think he does please tell us a libcommie policy that would create rather than destroy jobs or admit you lack the IQ to be here.

The stimulus. We covered this already. Don't make me trot out the survey of top economists again, since you clearly didn't understand it the first time.

 

[Dad2three]

Mondale was a weak and ineffective candidate, and didn't come across well on TV. But most importantly, Ronnie's great debt-fuelled spending spree, made it seem like the US was prospering. The stock market hadn't crashed so everyone was euphoric over the great economy, and the lower taxes. It was in Reagan's second term that the negative effects of his tax cuts came home to roost.

Much like no Republican wanted to run against Clinton (and hence you got Dole), nobody in the democratic party wanted to run against Reagan.

The Market crashed in 1987 because of computer issues (or so they say) but was back in three months.

I believe the market tripled under Reagan (from memory).

There were no negative effects from his tax cuts in his second term.

That is simply a fairy tale.

Except he lowered revenues, tripled debt and ignored Mr Grays warnings from 1984 on in the S&L crisis that crashed Poppy's economy, and prob a second term, oops


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

Oh Really.....I'm shocked.

Reagan took quite a beating while he was in office and wasn't all the popular in his second term.

So what ?

History has a way of letting things sort themselves out.

Harry Truman wasn't seen as all that good until about 10 years after he left office. History, and a long look back, tells us he did a lot of good stuff.

Sorry. But four years after he's out of office and having been savaged by the fucktards on the left. Reagan is now where he belongs and so is Carter.

Sure Bubba, sure

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

PLEASE man up and be a man of your word, and ignore me????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 5 years created under Obama,

actually dear Obama is a libcommie so does not create jobs. If you think he does please tell us a libcommie policy that would create rather than destroy jobs or admit you lack the IQ to be here.

The stimulus.

dear how can taking money from some so they cant spend it and giving it to others so they can spend it help? Would you fill a swimming pool by taking water from one side and putting in the other?

See why we are 100% positive that liberallism is based in pure ignorance?