If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Because economic growth as measured by GDP, was greater in the decades prior to reagan, than in the decades since reagan. "

When you take a further look at those numbers, notice that it was the 70's that the decline really started taking hold... coincindentally, right after Johnson started implementing his great society.

 

[Cypress]

"Because economic growth as measured by GDP, was greater in the decades prior to reagan, than in the decades since reagan. "

When you take a further look at those numbers, notice that it was the 70's that the decline really started taking hold... coincindentally, right after Johnson started implementing his great society.

And yet economic growth (GDP) was still stronger in the 1960s and 1970s, than in the decades from 1980 to 2006. The "reaganomics" period.

 

[Damocles]

And yet economic growth (GDP) was still stronger in the 1960s and 1970s, than in the decades from 1980 to 2006. The "reaganomics" period.

You mean after the Kennedy tax cuts? Then it declined when Johnson implemented his plan, then rose again? Hmmm.... It seems the "speculation" is well-supported by the timeline.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Speculation.

When the data don't support you, Cons always turn to opinion and speculation as to why their polcies don't work.

The empirical data and facts, show the economy and middle class was doing better, relatively, before the reagan years, than after 1980.

No... what liberals like you do is try to twist the fact by looking at averages twisted to show what you want.

Lets take a closer look at your sites data....

Reagan had 9 A's, 10 B's, 8C's, 1D, and 4 F's

Clinton had 6 A's, 8 B's, 13 C's, 4 D's and 1F

 

[Cypress]

You mean after the Kennedy tax cuts? Then it declined when Johnson implemented his plan, then rose again? Hmmm.... It seems the "speculation" is well-supported by the timeline.

Haha....this thread has devolved into desparate spin to explain away the superior economic growth record of the pre-reagan years compared to the post-reagan years.

And this was after 30 posts trying to claim that the period of 1980 to 2006 was a golden age for the middle class!

My work here is almost done. As for the LBJ tax cuts (it was LBJ that passed them by the way, not JFK), I'm not against tax cuts. It was entirely prudent at that time. And I don't think they involved silly give-aways to the ultra-rich, like bush's tax cuts did. In other words, they were a fair and prudent democratic tax cut. The 90% marginal tax rate was ridiculous - that was an artifact left over from world war two, and there was no reason not to reduce that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"And yet economic growth (GDP) was still stronger in the 1960s and 1970s, than in the decades from 1980 to 2006. The "reaganomics" period."

You really are annoying with your childlike "analysis". You are, like your "analysis" of stock market returns, looking at ONE piece of data AVERAGED over an entire decade and then trying to make an assumption based on those averages. Break down the numbers moron. Look at what they are truly telling you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"And this was after 30 posts trying to claim that the period of 1980 to 2006 was a golden age for the middle class!"

So let me get this straight... you are saying the high inflation/high interest rate environment of the 70's was better than 1982-2006?

No economist would agree with you on that. None. Not one.

You ignore the comments taken directly from your own site....

"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger, there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time. A worthwhile analysis might test the significance of total taxation and regulation as a causal variable against GDP growth. "

Note the last sentence in particular.

 

[Damocles]

Haha....this thread has devolved into desparate spin to explain away the superior economic growth record of the pre-reagan years compared to the post-reagan years.

And this was after 30 posts trying to claim that the period of 1980 to 2006 was a golden age for the middle class!

My work here is almost done. As for the LBJ tax cuts (it was LBJ that passed them by the way, not JFK), I'm not against tax cuts. It was entirely prudent at that time. And I don't think they involved silly give-aways to the ultra-rich, like bush's tax cuts did. In other words, they were a fair and prudent democratic tax cut. The 90% marginal tax rate was ridiculous - that was an artifact left over from world war two, and there was no reason not to reduce that.

My analysis seems to have directly effected you. You admit at one period that a downturn took effect after Johnson's implementation of his plan, then say it was "still higher in the 60s and 70s". So, I took the one difference and applied it. Then you pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Cypress]

My analysis seems to have directly effected you. You admit at one period that a downturn took effect after Johnson's implementation of his plan, then say it was "still higher in the 60s and 70s". So, I took the one difference and applied it. Then you pretend it doesn't exist.

Damo,

Economic growth was superior for the entire pre-reagan period. Not just from the mid 1960s to 1980.

 

[cawacko]

Good. So we agree that when Cawacko made the claim that the middle class was doing better since 1980 because of all the "weath that has been created", it was an inaccurate statement.

Because economic growth as measured by GDP, was greater in the decades prior to reagan, than in the decades since reagan.

In short, overall economic performance was better from 1946-1980, than from 1980-2006.

No we don't agree.

As as aside, what metrics are you using to define the "middle class" if any?

 

[Damocles]

Damo,

Economic growth was superior for the entire pre-reagan period. Not just from the mid 1960s to 1980.

However, direct analysis as applied shows that SF's statement was in actuality true. Applied variable analysis will show that regulation and taxation has more to do with the economy than you attempt to assert in this thread.

It isn't like I'm attempting to say that growth was larger after Reagan or during it, I am simply applying a further analysis to the same numbers you have given.

You attempt to reject the analysis, yet it applies directly and shows a causal relationship.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My analysis seems to have directly effected you. You admit at one period that a downturn took effect after Johnson's implementation of his plan, then say it was "still higher in the 60s and 70s". So, I took the one difference and applied it. Then you pretend it doesn't exist.

That is because when you actually LOOK at the numbers from his site... he finds out how idiotic it is to look at the decade averages and act like that tells any type of realistic story.

He also likes to pretend that the regulations implemented(like the ones by Johnson) had an effect on the growth in the economy. That when you are talking in terms of percentage growth it is harder to grow a larger economy. That Volker and Greenspan used the monetary policy to do a far better job at maintaining a non-inflationary environment. They deliberately tried to limit growth to a more sustainable pace.

 

[Cypress]

No we don't agree.

As as aside, what metrics are you using to define the "middle class" if any?

But, before you ignore all the data I've given you, let's clear this up:

Do you agree that economic growth (GDP) was superior in the pre-reagan years (1946-1980), than in the post-reagan years (1980-2006)?

-Do you agree that in the pre-reagan years, an average working family could live virtually anywhere in the country and make a decent, comfortable life on one spouses income; whereas today, large swaths of the country - from the rust belt to small town america - are economically not viable for a large healthy middle class?

 

[Cancel7]

But, before you ignore all the data I've given you, let's clear this up:

Do you agree that economic growth (GDP) was superior in the pre-reagan years (1946-1980), than in the post-reagan years (1980-2006)?

-Do you agree that in the pre-reagan years, an average working family could live virtually anywhere in the country and make a decent, comfortable life on one spouses income; whereas today, large swaths of the country - from the rust belt to small town america - are economically not viable for a large healthy middle class?

I just don't understand, in between all of the other bullshit going on in this thread, this right here is self-evident.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Economic growth was superior for the entire pre-reagan period. Not just from the mid 1960s to 1980."

No, it was not. Take a look at the wild swings the economy kept going through. Volker and Greenspan worked to stabilize that. You had far less volatility in the economy from 1983-present than you did in the 60's and 70's. Now if you want to look "just at the decade averages" then you are correct, the averages were higher. But no economist would claim the 60's and 70's were superior.

 

[Cancel7]

"Economic growth was superior for the entire pre-reagan period. Not just from the mid 1960s to 1980."

No, it was not. Take a look at the wild swings the economy kept going through. Volker and Greenspan worked to stabilize that. You had far less volatility in the economy from 1983-present than you did in the 60's and 70's. Now if you want to look "just at the decade averages" then you are correct, the averages were higher. But no economist would claim the 60's and 70's were superior.

If on average, growth was higher during that time period, how can you claim that no economist would say that? Have you spoken with enconmists about this?

I am amazed that every time Cypress posts statistics, that you two can't dispute, you claim that he is wrong, though his statistics are correct.

It's become really boring.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I just don't understand, in between all of the other bullshit going on in this thread, this right here is self-evident.

Actually, in a very simplistic view, he is correct that the average GDP growth for the decades was higher in the 60's and 70's. But he is ignoring all the other factors. The biggest one being the fact that the Fed deliberately tried to slow growth... to moderate it.... so that we wouldn't have such volatility in the growth.... which led during the 60's and 70's to longer periods of economic instability. He is trying to make an idiotic assumption that because the numbers average higher, that somehow that makes the period after Reagan somehow worse for the middle class. Whereas the exact opposite is true. The more stable economy with sustainable growth actually provided the average american more confidence in the market and the economy. But Cypress doesn't care about any of this, nor will he read it. All he cares about is that he found someone who averaged a number that looks really really pretty to him. What he fails to realize is that underneath that pretty wrapping paper is a box of shit.

His assertation on a family living off of one income is also simplistic. Because you could still live in the vast majority of this country on one income. But not if you adhere to the irresponsibility so many people have today to live beyond their means.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If on average, growth was higher during that time period, how can you claim that no economist would say that? Have you spoken with enconmists about this? "

1) I have said that the average is higher.

2) But NO economist would say that it is "superior"... THAT is what I said. The reasons for this I just re-stated in my previous post.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Desh, I agree he was a lying sack of crap, on vietnam. He had a lot of blood on his hands.

But, if you ever took out a low-interest college loan; if you go through you day (rightly) assuming your drinking water is clean; and if you get in a car or airplane with the assumption that it's been inspected for safety; and if you have ever assumed that the impoverished single mom living next door is able to get state healthcare for her kid - those are things that came out of the johnson adminstration.

I don't even hate you for saying that anymore. I don't know what's wrong with me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"It's become really boring."

So if I were to use his same numbers (like I did above) and compare Reagan's 8 years to Clinton's 8 years and show you...

Reagan had 9 A's, 10 B's, 8C's, 1D, and 4 F's

Clinton had 6 A's, 8 B's, 13 C's, 4 D's and 1F

So if I ran around shouting.... Reagan had more A's and B's than Clinton... thus Reagan had SUPERIOR growth to clinton based on that cherry picking of data.... what would you say to that? You would say it is completely simplistic and an arbitrary cherry picking of data. IT WOULD NOT SHOW THE COMPLETE PICTURE. Just a tiny piece of the puzzle.

please note: Cypress has done NOTHING to dispute ANY of my points. OR the points made by the author of HIS SITE.