View Full Version : the Great Ronald Reagan presidentcy
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:15 PM
Inflation declined 48%, from 8.9 to 4.6%.
Unemployment declined 45%, from 7.5 to 5.2.%.
Interest rates declined 71.9%, from 21 to 5.9%.
Twenty-one million new jobs were created.
ended the cold war
http://www.enterstageright.com/arch.../0800record.htm
Unfortunately, like so much of the Clinton-Gore legacy, it just ain't so. Ronald Reagan presided over what was at the time the longest continuous peacetime economic expansion, during which GDP increased by the size of West Germany, real per capita incomes grew by one-fifth, the rate of manufacturing productivity growth tripled, exports doubled, unemployment and inflation were halved, and Americans enjoyed 21 million net new jobs and 4.5 million new businesses. The record Clinton and Gore today vilify sounds very much like the one they are trying to run on, except Reagan's numbers are all the more impressive because of the Carter malaise he had to build on and the smaller national population.
Indeed, between 1983 and 1989 the economy grew by 4 percent annually. It grew by 2.6 percent annually during most of Clinton's term. In order for this period of growth to be the longest economic expansion in history, Clinton and Gore must concede that it began 21 months before they took office, under the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Otherwise, Reagan's record for the longest peacetime expansion still stands.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:20 PM
go on deny facts
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_rec_dol.gif
Receipts during the Reagan years increased by $310 billion and by $870.8 billion under Mr. Clinton. This chart show a sharp and steady increase in revenue under Mr. Clinton which may have helped him return us to fiscal responsibility.
Two conservative myths bite the dust in this category. First, tax increases do NOT decrease revenue and tax cuts do not increase revenue more than tax increases. Conservatives also argue Mr. Reagan doubled revenue. This is NOT correct.
In 1993 President Clinton signed into law his economic plan which called for $250 billion in tax increases and $250 billion in spending cuts. Every republican in both Houses of Congress voted against the legislation. However, after republicans took control of congress in 1995 they didn't repeal the tax increases. This fact alone suggest very strongly that their first vote was pure politics and they really didn't want to balance the budget. That vote along with the tax cuts they passed under Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush suggest very strongly they use the government purse to buy power.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_rec_gdp.gif
As a percent of the economy receipts grew under Mr. Clinton and shrank under Mr. Reagan. When one considers Mr. Reagan promised a balanced budget in four years, but instead gave us the largest deficits in US history (until Mr. Bush) not only was it a broken promise, but these charts and those that follow disassemble many if not all of what conservatives say they stand for.
Conservatives, like Reagan did not believe in a balanced budget. The deficits created under Mr. Reagan are nothing more than future taxes plus interest. A reasoned individual would never give the present generation tax cuts while saddling the next with massive tax increases. But, this is exactly what Mr. Reagan and his conservative allies in Congress did.
It's important to understand that higher receipts gave us the massive surpluses, not less spending. Also, more growth in the economy didn't give us higher receipts since both presidents gave us about the same amount of growth. Two more conservative theories bite the dust.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_out_dol.gif
Spending during both presidencies was about the same. Mr. Reagan increased spending by $386.3 billion while Mr. Clinton increased spending by $379.3 billion. However, Mr. Clinton was forced to spend far more money to finance the debt than Mr. Reagan. When Mr. Reagan began his term we were spending only $112 billion a year to finance the debt. In 2000, Mr. Clinton had to spend $225 billion. See Interest on the Debt. On the other hand, Mr. Reagan had the luxury of spending on whatever programs he wanted (since the deficits didn't really matter to him), including the biggest pork program in the government...the US military.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_out_gdp.gif
The striking difference between the two presidents can be seen here. Mr. Reagan began his presidency on a spending spree, increasing spending as a percent of the economy every year through 1985 (the year after his reelection). For the rest of his term spending declined. It should be noted Iran/Contra broke in late 1986 and the republicans lost control of the Senate in the same year.
So a republican president and congress gave us massive spending and our highest deficits for six years, but spending was dramatically cut after the democrats regained control of the Senate in 1987.
Spending under Mr. Clinton declined every year.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:43 PM
and ford guess who was in control of the house and senate in the 80's and who was in control of it in the 90's? thats right the dems in the 80's and the repubs in the 90's. who put in all the reforms to bring down the deficts? republicans. it's ironic the country had a deficit budget for the first time in 2002 which was the first time in 10 years that the dems controlled the senate and it was the first budget they passed in 8 years
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:44 PM
to bad facts still don't support you
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_def_dol.gif
No matter how we cut it, the rise in the surplus during the Clinton years was truly historic. Mr. Reagan however, was unable to trim a single penny from the deficit from where it was when he began his presidency. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year until we had record surpluses.
The falling deficits freed up needed capital for the economy to grow and the Clinton Investment Led Super Boom began. Stocks rose at historic levels and continued to do so throughout his presidency.
The surplus of $274.1 billion in 2000 was in marked contrast to the record -$290 billion deficit in 1992 and -$274.1 billion in 1993 under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Reagan increased the deficit in dollars every year except 1987 and 1988, the two years democrats controlled the Senate. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_def_gdp.gif
Deficits as a percent of our economy shrank every year under Mr. Clinton and as you can see from the chart never recovered from the Reagan spending spree and tax cuts in the 1980's. Any evidence Mr. Reagan was for less government or a balanced budget can not be found in the facts. Mr. Reagan spoke of both, but delivered the opposite.
Oddly enough, Mr. Clinton was attacked by conservative republicans for his spending programs. All one has to do is review the deficits under both presidents to see which party and which president wanted more government and more taxes (deficits are future taxes plus interest).
Deficits as a percent of gdp peaked in 1985 and fell every year after under Mr. Reagan, while under Mr. Clinton deficits as a percent of the economy fell eight years in a row.
By the time republicans got around to passing the balanced budget plan in 1997 for fiscal year 1998, the deficit was almost gone. Anyone attempting to give them credit for the balanced budget is sadly mistaken. Their five-year plan calls for our first balanced budget in 2002 ( a year Mr. Bush has once again returned us to deficits). Their plan was only five years off. Our first balanced budget occurred in 1998.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:46 PM
again ford facts don't support you all your showing is the republicans turning around everything.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_def_current.gif
Deficits in current 1996 dollars are about the same as in the other deficit chart (two up). This chart was included to show how similar they look.
The average deficit in current dollars was -$167.34 under Mr. Reagan and -$34.6 under Mr. Clinton.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:48 PM
you can try all you like ford but fact are facts. republicans did everything uder clinton and you know it and posting the same thing over and over show your an idiot
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_interest.gif
As stated earlier, the cost of deficit spending during the Reagan and Bush years sucked an enormous amount of money out of the economy. Interest costs peaked in 1996 under Mr. Clinton, then fell every year afterwards. Costs never declined under Mr. Reagan.
When conservatives tell you deficits don't matter...remember this chart and the numbers. Someone has to pay more taxes to finance all the debt conservatives give us with their tax cuts. Mr. Reagan gave us more debt than all previous president combined and therefore the largest future tax increase of all previous presidents combined. Mr. Bush gave us the largest deficits in US history. Mr. Clinton returned us to fiscal responsibility (tax and spend, instead of spend and borrow) and the largest surpluses in US history.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_income.gif
Another area of extraordinary success during the Clinton years is the rise in median family income. Income rose $3,900 under Mr. Reagan and $7,418 under Mr. Clinton (in 2000 dollars). This is one time when a picture isn't worth a thousand words. The increase under Mr. Clinton were almost twice that of Mr. Reagan.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_unemploy.gif
Unemployment declined on average for both presidents. The spike in years 1-3 are a result of a very severe recession. Mr. Reagan presided over the highest unemployment rate since 1941 in 1982 and 1983. Unemployment peaked in 1982 but remained historically high throughout his presidency. Average unemployment under Mr. Reagan was 7.54% and 5.20% under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton gave us the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:53 PM
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
by Peter B. Sperry, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1414
March 1, 2001 | |
See also: The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/utilities/handle-link.cfm&thelink=CP___PAGEID=7493,images/bg1414tab1.gif,18
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
History confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/utilities/handle-link.cfm&thelink=CP___PAGEID=7494,images/bg1414cht1.gif,18
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_pov.gif
Another major success of the Clinton years is the drop in poverty. Poverty dropped 3.8% under Mr. Clinton and 1% under Mr. Reagan (beginning term to ending term). Average poverty was 13.28% under Mr. Clinton and 15.82% under Mr. Reagan or 2.54% lower under Mr. Clinton on average (15.82-13.28=2.54). However, it should be noted the recession caused poverty to spike up 1.2% in years two and three (1982 and 1983) under Mr. Reagan.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:54 PM
look at all those numbers how they are much higher under reagan then clinton. more jobs,higher gdp,higher take home pay etc etc etc
ELVIS
06-05-2004, 06:55 PM
The $379 million was spent creating 21 million jobs...
Clinton rode the wave...
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_debt_dol.gif
By the first year of Mr. Reagan's term the US has accumulated $994.8 billion in debt from all previous years. In just eight years Mr. Reagan increased the debt to $2.6 trillion or an increase of $1.6 trillion. This figure represents the largest accumulation of debt of any president in history and almost twice as much debt as all previous president combined.
Mr. Reagan gave us more debt than any president in history.
Mr. Bush promised to pay down the debt in 10 years but in 2002 projects he'll increase it by over $2 trillion. Knowing what I know about republican presidents they seem to always under project what they're going to spend. Thus, it's highly likely the debt projections will increase over the next three years.
Obviously this last bit of info needs to be updated. Junior has already trumped Reagan in the debt category
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_debt_gdp.gif
This category clearly shows the successes and failures of the two presidents. Total debt as a percent of our economy grew from 25.8% to 40.9% in eight years under Mr. Reagan. This debt represents future taxes plus interest.
Under Mr. Clinton the debt dropped from 49.5% of gdp to 35.0%. While Mr. Clinton wasn't able to completely undo the fiscal disaster of Mr. Reagan he began the process. It's now up to a future president to decide if this success will continue or if deficits and debt will once again be with us.
Under Mr. Bush the debt as a percent of the economy is projected to increase from 56.8% of the economy to 58% by 2007. Placing this in historical perspective, the debt dropped throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's then began a steep increase from 1982-1996. From 1997-2001 the debt dropped again and is once again going up. Clearly republican tax cuts and spending programs are having a devastating effect on this number.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 06:59 PM
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/bw/bw99_02_22.pdf havard says reagan was better
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_manu.gif
Manufacturing rose considerable faster under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Reagan however had a slight dip during the recession in 1982 and 1983 (years 2 and 3). The explosion of growth in manufacturing is another clear sign that Mr. Clinton's policies were far more successful than Mr. Reagan's. Some argue it was the dot.com's, but this is incorrect. The NASDAQ, which represented the dot.com's wasn't the only index that rose. More on this in the four stock indexes. One needs to recall it was during the 1980's cable TV began. The boom to the economy from that new technology is often forgotten when making comparisons between the 1980's and the 1990's.
ELVIS
06-05-2004, 07:03 PM
You can't win FORD
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_corp.gif
Not only were the Clinton policies good for the budget, but corporate America also enjoyed some very good times. In this chart we can better see this success. Corporate profits increased by $143.5 billion under Mr. Reagan and a whopping $326.6 billion under Mr. Clinton. The dip in profits in 1982 and 1983 (years 2 and 3) under Mr. Reagan were caused by the recession. On the other hand, corporate profits peaked in 1997 (year 5) under Mr. Clinton, then dropped slightly before continuing to soar. More research needs to be done to determine the causes of this dip. However, it needs to be noted strongly the dip lasted just two years before posting record profits in the last year of Mr. Clinton's term.
This number always blows me away. Corporate profits in the US were $833.0 billion in 2000. The rest of the world had $136.8 billion (Table B-11--Economic Report of the President, 2002). Putting this in perspective, at the end of Mr. Reagan's term US corporations had $303.1 billion more profits than the rest of the world combined. In the final year of Mr. Clinton, corporations had $696.2 billion more. Not bad in just eight years.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:04 PM
ford you can spam all you want from your unknow source i wonder why you not providing it? but still the numbers show reagan was better
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:07 PM
oh i know why your using a tripod source that doesn't even list its source for it's info poor you ford http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_dow.gif
A picture is worth a thousand words. This index like those that follow, show a dramatic increase in investments. The DJIA tracks 30 stocks. The Investment Led Super Boom of the Clinton years is truly historic. Those who think hi-tech (mostly in the NASDAQ) fueled our economic boom are sadly mistaken. The boom was in almost every type of stock including the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Note the drop in year 8 (1988) under Mr. Reagan. This was years before the recession so it can't be blamed on that. Also, note the massive high in 2000 under Mr. Clinton, less than a year before another recession hit. The current recession (2002) will be very weak compared to the Reagan recession because the economy was so strong going in to it. Unemployment too was far higher prior to the Reagan recession than the recessions under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
[b]The last three recessions came under republican presidents, Reagan in 1981, Bush Sr in 1991 and Bush Jr in 2001. Stocks suffer minor losses during recessions and recover quickly on average.
again, nobody's predictions can be perfect all the time. He definitely called the depth of Junior's recession wrong
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
You can't win FORD
he can't even get good numbers either
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_nyse.gif
The Dow and the New York Stock Exchange follow each other almost exactly. The NYSE includes nearly 3000 stocks. It always nice to see some things don't change. The NYSE continues to show the dot.com's were not the only reason for the historic economic prosperity during the Clinton years. Lower deficits and higher surpluses clearly have a positive effect on investments. When will investors learn this? Tax cuts and their resulting deficits do long-term damage to the economy...always have and always will.
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_sandp.gif
The Standard and Poor's Composite includes 500 stocks. The trends in this index reflect the previous two indexes almost exactly. In all three indexes Mr. Clinton's blue line is far higher than Mr. Reagan's. The Investment Led Super Boom of the Clinton years can easily be seen in this category. Tax cuts under Mr. Reagan did not produce the growth in investments needed for long-term growth because any illusion of growth created by excess spending (deficits) actually keeps interests rates high and therefore suppresses growth. There is a direct and provable correlation between investment increases, interest rates and government surpluses.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:13 PM
still won't list your souce eh ford? see thats the difference between us: i use real sources you don't. i've got harvard and the house of represenitives you don't
http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/rvc_nasdaq.gif
Now we have something odd happening. Note the differences beginning in year 6 under Mr. Clinton compared to the other three indexes. This is the dot.com stuff everyone likes to talk about. The NASDAQ represents over 4000 stocks and is the home of most high-tech stocks. The growth in the last three year under Mr. Clinton should not be confused with the growth in the rest of the economy or the recession beginning in March of 2001 since the growth was wide spread in almost every part of our economy...including manufacturing.
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:17 PM
for the hell of it ford i'll even show you how bushs first three years were better then clintons
Better than Clinton?
Putting Bush's economic record to the reelection test.
By J. Edward Carter
Nine months prior to the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers cheerfully reported that the "American economy has performed exceptionally well over the past 3 years." While that may not surprise you, you may however be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush's economic record is, in many ways, better than the record Clinton ran on for reelection.
Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured:
lower inflation
lower unemployment
faster productivity growth
faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)
29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output
45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and
an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_carter2-25.gif
Considering the circumstances under which the U.S. economy has labored for the past few years, President Bush's record is all the more impressive. When George W. Bush moved into the White House, the economy was on the verge of recession. The largest stock market bubble in U.S. history had recently burst, exports were declining, manufacturing employment had been falling for half a year, and people were finding it harder and harder to find work. And that was before 9/11, the war on terror, and the revelations of the corporate-governance scandals that grew out of the late 1990s.
The tax cuts President Bush signed into law helped alleviate the impact of these economic shocks and kept millions of Americans working who would have otherwise lost their jobs. Consequently, the unemployment rate peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent, compared with peaks of 7.8 percent and 10.8 percent during the previous two recessions.
With the U.S. economy on the upswing, President Bush's critics are finding it increasingly difficult to disparage his economic record. But that won't stop them. Fortunately, as Aldous Huxley observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." So what are the facts?
Most private-sector forecasters expect the U.S. economy will grow faster this year (on an average annual basis) than in any year since 1984.
For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany, and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States.
Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House.
The U.S. remains the world's largest exporter. In fact, during the first three years of the Bush administration, the U.S. exported more in real terms than it did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations combined.
More single-family homes were sold in 2003 than in any other year on record. And the homeownership rate is at a record-high of 68.5 percent a full percentage point higher than during the fourth quarter of 2000.
At 5.6 percent, the national unemployment rate is now lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s.
According to the Labor Department's household survey the survey used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate more Americans are working now than ever before. The payroll survey is also showing improvement: 112,000 new jobs were created in January and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last five months.
While President Bush's economic record is arguably better than the record Bill Clinton ran on in 1996, this truth is frequently obscured by unrelenting partisan criticism based more on fancy than fact. But the fact remains that the United States boasts the world's largest and most vibrant economy. It will stay that way so long as we are guided by a trust in what President Bush calls "the power and possibilities of freedom."
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
still won't list your souce eh ford? see thats the difference between us: i use real sources you don't. i've got harvard and the house of represenitives you don't
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/
Is Junior's own budget office a "real" enough source for you :D
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:22 PM
what you posted isn't from either one of those and you know it
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:25 PM
Clinton V. Reagan On Economic Performance In the debate over tax levels and tax cuts, economic growth and family incomes, performance comparisons between the Reagan years and the recent Clinton years should provide solid guideposts to future policy. Taxes were decreased during the Reagan years; increased during Clinton's tenure.
Here are a few key statistics:
From 1983 to 1989, real gross domestic product increased at an average annual rate of 3.9 percent; but only 2.3 percent in the period 1993-95.
Over the same periods, employment increased at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent under Reagan, 2 percent under Clinton.
During the Reagan years, productivity increased at an average yearly rate of 1.5 percent; but just 0.6 percent under Clinton.
Under Reagan, real after-tax income per capita bounded ahead 2.7 percent -- a rate more than twice the 1.3 percent under Clinton.
These changes occurred within the context of a labor force increasing at a 1.8 percent rate during 1983-89 and 0.8 percent during 1993-95.
Growth in the first quarter of 1996 also happened to be 2.3 percent, although real GDP was only 1.7 percent higher than a year before.
Slower growth of output naturally results in slower growth of real income. And when people are unable to better their lot, worker frustration sets in -- a phenomenon now being reported and examined in the press.
Two additional key comparisons should be noted:
Following tax rate reductions in the 80s, income tax receipts amounted to 8.5 percent of GDP.
Higher marginal tax rates in the '90s failed to bring in widely anticipated additional government revenues -- in fact they fell to just 8.2 percent of GDP.
Despite smaller budget deficits, total national savings dropped to only 15.2 percent of GDP in the past three years -- down from 17.2 percent in 1983-89.
Economists warn that marginal tax rates are much too high, and the tax system is horribly biased against savings and investment.
The predictable result has been little or no progress in livings standards during the past seven years.
Source: Alan Reynolds (Hudson Institute), "Clintonomics Doesn't Measure Up," Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996.
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
what you posted isn't from either one of those and you know it
not directly, but it's the best I could do on such short notice. You already posted the link, so you know where I found it.
The dude did his research. It's just too bad he hasn't updated it to reflect Junior's damage.
But apparently Clinton vs Junior is his next project ;)
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:33 PM
none of those numbers are from anywhere and he didn't do his research. i posted that thing from harvard that proves my point. harvard! i even posted a thing that compares bush to clinton and bush won.
Pink Spider
06-05-2004, 07:34 PM
Reagan & Guatemala's Death Files (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html)
War Crimes and Double Standards
(of Ronald Reagan and the press) (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/WarCrimes_Reagan_iF.html)
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 07:36 PM
your just pissed that he eliminated your favorite form of government
freak
06-05-2004, 07:38 PM
It boils down to this...Legacy
Nixon: "I am not a crook"
Ford: Chevy Chase falling every Saturday night
Carter: Numerous inane comments about Amy and the Reagan debate
Reagan: "Tear Down This Wall" and leaving office as the most popular President of the modern era
Bush Sr.: Read my lips...
Clinton: "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.....Miss Lewinsky." Yep, his whole legacy is getting hummers from an overweight intern, leaving seman stains on a blue dress and using the aformentioned intern as a humidor.
Pink Spider
06-05-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by lucky wilbury
your just pissed that he eliminated your favorite form of government
The breakup and internal crumbling of the Soviet Union was inevitable from Stalin's rule. Reagan had little to do with anything.
freak
06-05-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
The breakup and internal crumbling of the Soviet Union was inevitable from Stalin's rule. Reagan had little to do with anything.
Actually he had quite a lot to do with hastening it by engaging in an arms race the Soviet economy would struggle to keep up with.
Star wars.
Biggest damned poker bluff in history.
Viking
06-05-2004, 08:05 PM
There IS no debate about Ronald Reagan. Or his presidency.
Pink Spider
06-05-2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by freak
Actually he had quite a lot to do with hastening it by engaging in an arms race the Soviet economy would struggle to keep up with.
Star wars.
Biggest damned poker bluff in history.
The only thing the Soviets were good at was building weapons. They spent little on anything else. They certainly had enough nukes for mutual assured destruction and they could match any technology to bypass or match something (that didn't even work!) like Star Wars. So, that's not a very logical answer.
Seshmeister
06-05-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by freak
Actually he had quite a lot to do with hastening it by engaging in an arms race the Soviet economy would struggle to keep up with.
Star wars.
Biggest damned poker bluff in history.
Interesting argument but I always thought that it was a bluff by the arms industry on Reagan.
freak
06-05-2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
The only thing the Soviets were good at was building weapons. They spent little on anything else. They certainly had enough nukes for mutual assured destruction and they could match any technology to bypass or match something (that didn't even work!) like Star Wars. So, that's not a very logical answer.
Read accounts by their very own officers and men after The Soviet Union collapsed.
Armament quality was *very* low. The only thing they were good at was building massive quantities of second grade weaponry. It worked very well during WWII (Especially aircraft). In the modern era, it was a failure.
freak
06-05-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Interesting argument but I always thought that it was a bluff by the arms industry on Reagan.
Reagan's greatest asset, I think, was not dissuading those idiots who called him a senile, stupid actor. The most dangerous guys out there are the ones you totally underestimate.
The administration knew damned well what it was doing with the arms race.
Remember, if you are old enough, how the press derrided the Star Wars thing as unfeasible. The didn't even notice the Soviet reaction to it - Blind panic.
Wasn't important if it was feasable or not.
They had to counter it just in case or be hopelessly behind in the race. ...And they knew they couldn't do it.
Remember the initial arms talks breaking down? That "unfeasable Star Wars thing" was the reason.
It was an ace in the hole the Reagan Administration played to full advantage.
ELVIS
06-05-2004, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by freak
Read accounts by their very own officers and men after The Soviet Union collapsed.
Armament quality was *very* low. The only thing they were good at was building massive quantities of second grade weaponry. It worked very well during WWII (Especially aircraft). In the modern era, it was a failure.
Absolute truth!
lucky wilbury
06-05-2004, 10:56 PM
here is the ultimate arguement for reagan: under reagan we got:
Fair warning
Diver down
1984
eat em and smile
under clinton we got
right here right now
balance
vh3
any questions?
ELVIS
06-06-2004, 12:31 AM
Good call!
:D
rustoffa
06-06-2004, 02:44 AM
God bless him. Took a bullet and did his best to reverse Carter's legacy of brain batter. Momar got frazzled, walls fell, etc. He loved this country.
Chong Li
06-06-2004, 07:51 AM
And so he presided over deficits.
So what?
Its not as though there was a massive rise in interest rates as deficit hawks claim.
Clinton benefitted from the peace dividend and the internet boom.
Nothing more.
Originally posted by ELVIS
Good call!
:D
Bad call.
Van HALEN's music was a rebellion against the false morality of Reagan and his "Moral Majority" fanbase.
Fair Warning, their darkest album, came out after Reagan was in office.
Van Hagar, led by a REPUBLICAN, was all about giving into that "kinder, gentler" homogenized consumerism trendy bullshit
MERRYKISSMASS2U
06-06-2004, 03:15 PM
tipper gore made up her stupid labels partly cuz of the hot for teacher vid
MERRYKISSMASS2U
06-06-2004, 03:16 PM
no matter if u like gary, dlr, or sammy, a vh fan will love this!
Rearranging the letters of 'David Lee Roth, Samuel Roy Hagar and Gary Francis Caine Cherone' gives:
A demoniac roar! They're loud, hairy, crag-faced Van Halen singers! check it out! respond with what u think
MERRYKISSMASS2U
06-06-2004, 03:17 PM
ps im pro roth... sorry to triple post
freak
06-06-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Bad call.
Van HALEN's music was a rebellion against the false morality of Reagan and his "Moral Majority" fanbase.
Oh, Jesus H Christ on a fucking pogo stick.
It was JUST MUSIC.
No political or social statements of any sort.
Just good, old fashion, party your ass off music which they incidentily were playing during the Carter administration too.
Van Hagar, led by a REPUBLICAN, was all about giving into that "kinder, gentler" homogenized consumerism trendy bullshit
Yessiree Bob! You nailed it!
Sammy Hagar is a Republican party invention. He was bio-engineered in the GOP's top secret labs to act as a catalyst for Keynesian economic policy advancement.
Just you wait!
Van Halen's forth singer will be another lab creation, Ted Nugent!
Ted's tenure will open up the ANWAR for drilling and lead to the wanton clubbing of cute baby seals.
And they'd have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you kids and that meddling dog!
Have a Scooby Snack, hero!
MERRYKISSMASS2U
06-06-2004, 03:39 PM
i wouldnt vote for dave for president, i would want him to be dictator
freak
06-06-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Chong Li
And so he presided over deficits.
So what?
Its not as though there was a massive rise in interest rates as deficit hawks claim.
Clinton benefitted from the peace dividend and the internet boom.
Nothing more.
Too busy fighting sexual harassment charges and squirting jizz on pudgy interns to have accomplished anything of his own accord.
Imagine what that piece of work would have been for this country had the cold war been going on or the OPEC situation been in effect (Ala Carter administration)
The phrase "In a world of shit" comes to mind.
tobinentinc
06-06-2004, 11:51 PM
Ford can't admit that Reagan was the man and Clinton wasn't.
I don't comment on Teddy Roosevelt's administration, because I wasn't there to see it.
I wouldn't argue what it was like to live through World War II, with my parents because I didn't live through it. So I have no frame of reference.
Just like you have none with Reagan's presidency.
Mourn the man if you want. But don't worship the myth, because it's complete bullshit.
lucky wilbury
06-07-2004, 01:19 AM
sort of like clinton fought terrorism right ford? thats a HUGE fucking myth
John Ashcroft
06-07-2004, 08:15 AM
Even Liberal Scholars Admit Reagan Won Cold War
Even the Los Angeles Times admits Reagan was key to winning the Cold War.
To critics' surprise, Reagan made major progress toward ending the Cold War; the Berlin Wall, the stark symbol of Europe's division between communism and democracy, came down less than a year after he left office, Doyle McManus, staff writer for the paper, wrote Sunday.
The Times noted that "Reagan will be remembered ... more for his success in bringing the Cold War to an end.
Here are some comments from some leading and liberal historians cited by the Los Angeles Times:
"Reagan's contribution to ending the Cold War was comparable to [President] Nixon's contribution to opening up China," said Walter LaFeber, a historian at Cornell University who has long been critical of Reagan. "Politically, to have somebody of Reagan's ideology do this was very important. It would have been very difficult for [a Democrat] to do it."
"It is probably true that Reagan's intensification of the arms race ... hastened the collapse of the Soviet economy," historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in a magazine piece several years after Reagan left office. "In a reversal that did him enormous credit, he ... outdistanced his own national security bureaucracy in taking Mikhail Gorbachev seriously and in moving to end the Cold War."
"There really has been a discernible change," said John Lewis Gaddis of Yale University. "Historians are taking Reagan much more seriously. ... There are very few who would still say what most were saying when he left office, which is that he was a cipher when it came to foreign policy. He was much more of a force than people gave him credit for at the time.
"Consider the way things were when he came into office and the way things were when he left totally different," Gaddis added. "The Berlin Wall came down less than a year after he left. That fact alone means we have to get over our preconceptions about this guy and acknowledge that something substantive occurred."
The New York Times Sunday echoed a similar theme in its coverage of Reagan's passing.
The Times cited Michael R. Beschloss, the presidential historian, who said the Cold War ended more quickly because of Reagan's leadership.
"With Reagan," Mr. Beschloss said, "the Soviets could no longer con themselves into thinking they would prevail in the cold war because the American people had lost their will and strength and lost their taste for confronting Soviet aggression. They were sufficiently convinced that Reagan meant business."
Some researchers are citing the recent surfacing of documents that show Reagan wrote almost all of his daily radio and weekly newspaper commentaries over a period of six years. These documents have been published in the book "Reagan In His Own Hand, edited by Martin and Annelise Anderson and Kiron Skinner.
"They were very impressive," LaFeber said. "I wasn't ready for something like this." The radio scripts "surprised a lot of people," Gaddis told the Times. "Whatever you think of the level of sophistication of the ideas, it's a remarkable performance for someone who was thought to rely heavily on speechwriters."
Another liberal myth bites the dust!
Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/6/102827.shtml)
Pink Spider
06-07-2004, 08:46 AM
Yep. The corporate media has been kissing Reagan's ass non stop.
So, where's this "liberal media" you've spoken of? I can't seem to find them.
Sickening, isn't it. I think I'm leaving the TV off this week.
And it pisses me off that the WWII vets who went to Normandy for what will likely be the last major anniversary of D-Day didn't get any recognition because the networks are all Reagan 24/7.
They know they're going to run this shit all week anyway, so they could have given it a rest for one day in favor of those who actually put their asses on the line against a real enemy.
As opposed to wasting trillions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction against an overhyped semi-fictional boogeyman.
DaveIsKing
06-07-2004, 09:20 AM
Funny these Commies always bring up Hitler and the Nazis...a 12 year regime which killed millions and had their asses handed to them in 5 years of war.
But, conveniently FORGET about COMMUNISM which killed three times as many people as Nazism and lasted 70 years taking a half century of Cold War to stop them. Until Reagan came along...that is.
But, just like all utopian libbies, Ford would have rather lived with Uncle Joe, right Ford???
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.