the Great Ronald Reagan presidentcy

[FORD]

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.

[FORD]

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]

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

[FORD]

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]

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







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."

[FORD]

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

[lucky wilbury]

what you posted isn't from either one of those and you know it

[lucky wilbury]

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.

[FORD]

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]

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]

Reagan & Guatemala's Death Files

War Crimes and Double Standards
(of Ronald Reagan and the press)

[lucky wilbury]

your just pissed that he eliminated your favorite form of government

[freak]

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]

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]

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.