They Wish Obama's Numbers Approached Reagan's

[PoliticalChic]

1. Statistics:
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
If you believe statistics, human beings have one breast and one testicle.


And one more: "income inequality."



The current bumper-sticker is that they'll fight 'income inequality.'
That is as much a lie as most of the other gambits and fabrications the Left uses to mislead the public, and to accrue power.

The basic idea advanced by Leftists is "you should be doing a lot better...It's not your fault .....and we are the only ones that care about you, not those heartless Rightwingers..."

Do you believe them?
Simply look at which party has led the 10 worst performing cities for half a century, and the truth is staring you in the face.
Wise up.


a. Speaking of 'those heartless' folks.....here are statistics you can believe: " In the book titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,"

Arthur C. Brooks cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals."

You betcha!




2. Some look at the Obama economy and tend to say that is true of pretty much all of recent economies, failing to recognize the abject failure of his administration.

a. " Amazingly, incomes have dropped even more during the “recovery” than they did during the recession. In fact, they’ve dropped more thantwiceas much as they did during the recession. From the start to the end of the recession, the real median income of American households fell $1,413, or 2.6 percent. From the end of the recession to the present day, it has dropped $3,040, or 5.7 percent.

Two of the groups hit hardest have been ones that turned out in abundance for Obama in 2008: black Americans and younger Americans (those between the ages of 25 and 34). During the first three years of the Obama “recovery,” the real median household income for black Americans dropped a whopping 11.1 percent. For Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 — the group most apt,as Paul Ryan put it, to be “staring up at fading Obama posters” and looking to “get going with life” — real median household income dropped 8.9 percent."
Americans’ Incomes Have Fallen $3,040 During the Obama ‘Recovery’




3. Now, before the recession, and the Obama malfeasance.....well, the Left tries to paint a bleak picture. Here, from the Washington Post:

“In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after accounting for inflation.” A Rising Tide?


This is what I mean about 'statistics.'
They use the term 'wages' because either 'income' or simply 'standard of living' would choke them, and sink any chance the Left could win an election.


The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years.
See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21


a. Prior to the current period, increases in prosperity resulted in more folks working only part time....currently there are more part timers because Obama hasn't been able to stimulate employment.

b. And, of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.


"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Washington Post:
“In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after accounting for inflation.”A Rising Tide?

The typical Leftist lie.

4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation.
Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

1. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.
2. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. EconPort - Consumer Price Index
3. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

And the same principle illustrates the lie inherent in ObamaCare....i.e., that only the rich get the best healthcare.
The rich are the first to pay for cutting edge technology,...that then becomes commonplace.

Laser eye surgery is a case in point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Wage stagnation?

".... the wages of the typical worker actually fell..."

Nonsense.

The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption.
That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Update:

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



6. Now, if this is clear….why would the folks at the Old Left Media want to convince the public that the sky is falling?
Here's why....a steady, unmitigated string of failures by Obama and his economic policies.


They Wish Obama's Numbers Approached Reagan's

 

[PoliticalChic]

Next: "the rich are getting richer!!!"

7. Now...a remedial lesson in statistics:

Changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.

The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!

In chapter nine of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”

 

[Dovahkiin]

Reagan's boom happened because he ran deficits.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.

When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.

Think big deficits cause recessions

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan's boom happened because he ran deficits.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.

When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.

Think big deficits cause recessions

Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan's second term.

In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.

The Democratic Fisc

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, turns out the thread title is correct, huh?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Think big deficits cause recessions

yes obviously, to pay for the deficit, liberal govt borrows from the private sector which causes a recession or they print money which creates a temporary stimulus that leads to a recession when the temporary stimulus is withdrawn and when private sector activity is diminished or recessed and transfered to where the public money is spent. 1=1=2

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The brilliant Donald Boudreaux points out the hand-wringing over over what has been termed 'income inequality' is but one more Leftist fabrication....

He refers to it as one of the great economic myths:

" The belief that large differences among people in monetary incomes or monetary wealth reflect some "market failure" that ought to be "addressed" by the state." 5 Myths Many Economists Believe | Donald J. Boudreaux


2. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world. Dennis Prager

1. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Reagan's boom happened because he ran deficits.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.

When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.

Think big deficits cause recessions

Yet as the table shows, the Reagan deficits never reached more than 6% of GDP, and that happened only in 1983, the first year of economic recovery. As the 1980s expansion continued, the deficits fell, especially as the pace of spending slowed in the latter part of Reagan's second term.

In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.

The Democratic Fisc

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, turns out the thread title is correct, huh?

Err, you don't understand my post. I fully support deficits. Reagan ran a nice little deficit that, when reduced in 1987, paved the way for recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I fully support deficits.

absurd of course, deficits are harmful. When you raise taxes to pay for them you recess the economy.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I fully support deficits.

absurd of course, deficits are harmful. When you raise taxes to pay for them you recess the economy.

Never happened. Refer to my signature for what is really harmful. Oh, by the way, since 71, we haven't had to use taxes to actually pay for anything. Federal spending isn't constrained by taxing or borrowing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

Hysterical. The Clinton surplus led to a recession because the private sector turned to credit because they were in debt due to a lack of deficit spending. Look at my signature if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

Hysterical. The Clinton surplus led to a recession because the private sector turned to credit because they were in debt due to a lack of deficit spending. Look at my signature if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

Bulletin: there never was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

It's the kind of propaganda that Leftist lame-brains believe.

True story.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

depends how big they are etc, but generally speaking a deficit is bad because enough of them and you have a $20 trillion debt to pay off. The conservative/libertarian approach is to make them illegal!

 

[Dovahkiin]

Never happened..

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

Hysterical. The Clinton surplus led to a recession because the private sector turned to credit because they were in debt due to a lack of deficit spending. Look at my signature if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

Bulletin: there never was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

It's the kind of propaganda that Leftist lame-brains believe.

True story.

Aww, take credit for it, there was a republican congress, was there not?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

of course it happened. When you tax a man he then must spend less and that decreases or recesses his economic activity!! Do you understand??>?

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

Hysterical. The Clinton surplus led to a recession because the private sector turned to credit because they were in debt due to a lack of deficit spending. Look at my signature if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

Bulletin: there never was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

It's the kind of propaganda that Leftist lame-brains believe.

True story.

Aww, take credit for it, there was a republican congress, was there not?

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Show me where deficits have caused a recession.

dear, there are many factors the affect an economy so isolating one is impossible but we can be positive that the more govt spends the more it creates bubbles that eventually burst when the artifical spending is stopped. Now do you understand?

Hysterical. The Clinton surplus led to a recession because the private sector turned to credit because they were in debt due to a lack of deficit spending. Look at my signature if you actually believe deficits cause recessions.

Bulletin: there never was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

It's the kind of propaganda that Leftist lame-brains believe.

True story.

Aww, take credit for it, there was a republican congress, was there not?

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

It's funny..