Reagan's Boom

Cypress... I also lived through it... but lets review a bit here. When we were referring to tax cuts... it was on individuals. Talking income tax cuts.

TEFRA... LOWERED taxes on individuals. It RAISED tax revenues by eliminating some tax benefits to corporations.

The gas tax... RAISED tax REVENUE by essentially taxing those that consumed the most gas... which is a FAIR tax. A CONSUMPTION tax.

The SS tax increase... he indexed it to inflation... which had to be done, because when SS was created it was not.

The 1984 Deficit reduction act addressed organizations that were previously given tax exempt status. Again... not about income taxes.
 
Cypress I lived though it too. Please prove to me than you are the lone liberal poster besides me than knows his head from his as on economics.

33% recessions pre Reagan , 5% Recessions Reagan forward.

He may have raised taxes a time or two but he is overwhelmingly known and credited for SLASHING them
as Kudlow pointed out.
Yes that was from Kudlow's blog.
 
And freak my main man, same workforce under Carter gave us stagflation of the 70's.
Takes good players and a coach to win Championships.
Reagan was the world economics Champion.
 
Freak, I'm guessing your mid 30's right?

You can't know how weak we were in the Carter years if you didn't live it as an adult.

The original piece was a cut and paste straight from Kudlow.
Of course he glosses Reagan, he worships the guy.

I'm still waiting on the anti growth crowed to refute the numbers.
They won't cause they can't:clink:
 
Topspin said:
Reagan’s Boom
The United States has been blessed with virtually uninterrupted prosperity for 25 years.

Over the past 100 quarters beginning in 1982, only five of them have been negative. Five. That means American workers and their families have been in prosperity 95 percent of the time.

It wasn’t always so good. As my friend Brian Wesbury noted on last night’s show, between 1969 and 1982, the US economy slogged through recession 33 percent of the time.

The credit for this remarkable economic transformation belongs to Ronald Reagan.

It was his sound economic vision and leadership that struck the match underneath this roaring American economy. It was his pro-growth policies of slashing taxes, deregulating, disinflation, and all the rest of it, that produced our nearly three decade long track record of success.

Since then, our strong, resilient, capitalist economy has been charging full steam ahead, one president after another. And for the most part, Reagan’s successors have been good stewards of their bounty.

But the real credit belongs to Reagan.
Click to expand...

Top, I'd like to see his figures on this. First of all, he is comparing two periods of different lenghts. That skews the percentages right there, and I feel it is a slight of hand. The period between 1982 and 2007 is 25 years. The period of 1969 and 1982 is 13 years. That makes any percentage figures, misleading.

Also, what is he using to make the determination of a "negative quarter"? Why does he give the number of "negative quarters" which he claim occurred recently, but does not give that number for first measure, between 1969 and 1982, rather he just gives the percentage, which we do not know how he arrived at, because he does not give the number of quarters there. I'll tell you, when someone parses info like this, it smells like horseshit. And I think it is horseshit. So I'd like to see his details. Why does he start at 1969? Is it because he doesn't want the large expansion of the middle class and of the economy that took place before 1969 in his figures? He took one 25 year period, and if he wanted to honestly compare something, he would have used the same 25 year period that preceded it, but he did not do that. Nor does he define "negative quarter".

The NBER, which seems to be the definitive word on recession, defines a recession quarter as: A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade.

Why does he not define his criteria?
 
:tongout: Economics 101
Negative quarter meand GDP in decline

Typical hyper liberal bullshit
Anybody over 35ish knows how bad the economy was under Carter and the the Eighties were called the roaring 80's. Only political hacks look to parse numbers. Rediculous request for numbers beyond your level of understanding
 
Topspin said:
:tongout: Economics 101
Negative quarter meand GDP in decline

Typical hyper liberal bullshit
Anybody over 35ish knows how bad the economy was under Carter and the the Eighties were called the roaring 80's. Only political hacks look to parse numbers. Rediculous request for numbers beyond your level of understanding
Click to expand...

Since he is playing with his percentages by using one period that is twice as long as the first period, I wanted to know how he is defining it.

I don't think I'm parsing numbers; I think he is.

How would telling me how many negative quarters there were in the first period he is using be "beyond my understanding". Were there 3? Were there 5? Or was there 1? It's a simple question. Why don't you give me the answer and then you can laugh about how it's beyond my understanding, when I show that I don't understand it?

When someone gives you two percentage figures, and one period he is using is twice as long as the second one, it renders the percentage method moot. I think that's why he used it. Let's see the actual numbers. And then for fun, let's expand his first period until it encompasses the 25 years his second period does.

But he doesn't want to do that, because that would destroy his figures, and his so-called "point." Because then he would have to include all of the 60's and the latter part of the 50's, and those were good years. And you know it.
 
Superfreak said:
Cypress... I also lived through it... but lets review a bit here. When we were referring to tax cuts... it was on individuals. Talking income tax cuts.

TEFRA... LOWERED taxes on individuals. It RAISED tax revenues by eliminating some tax benefits to corporations.

The gas tax... RAISED tax REVENUE by essentially taxing those that consumed the most gas... which is a FAIR tax. A CONSUMPTION tax.

The SS tax increase... he indexed it to inflation... which had to be done, because when SS was created it was not.

The 1984 Deficit reduction act addressed organizations that were previously given tax exempt status. Again... not about income taxes.
Click to expand...


According to the CBO: In 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent.

So you can parse this anyway you want to, but the combined tax burden for the middle class, went UP, not down.
 
Superfreak said:
"I guess the Bush I tax increases had nothing to do with the boom either ?"

No, they did not. They detracted from the growth of the economy.
Click to expand...

Detracted from the growth but did not effect the boom ? How does that figure, if it detracts from the growth it has to slow the boom.
 
Top, interesting little historical figure for you.

The period of 1961-1969 marks the second longest economic expansion in our history.

And he starts his first period, only half as long as he uses in his second period, at 1969.

Right there, that guy is fill of shit. A fair comparison would use two periods of time equal in lenght. Yet he cannot do that, because in order to do that he would have to figure in the second longest economical expansion in our history.
 
typical low class cheap shot.
I'm a dem and I support Growth and have praised Clinton and called for 8 more years of Clintonomics and you know it.
 
uscitizen said:
this is pretty telling. Republican economic supporters are going back to bragging on Regan :)
Click to expand...

Since the Clinton years marked the longest economic expansion in our history, the right wing machine has been at it for years, trying to credit Ronald Reagan for it.

Does it surprise you that Top has fallen for it lock, stock and c...errr, lock stock and barrel?
 
"Freak, I'm guessing your mid 30's right?

You can't know how weak we were in the Carter years if you didn't live it as an adult."

Correct.... 35

My peanut had a first name.... its J I M M Y

and I did not need to be an adult to know how weak Carter was as a President.
 
"Since the Clinton years marked the longest economic expansion in our history, the right wing machine has been at it for years, trying to credit Ronald Reagan for it."

Ummm.... The economic expansion began in 1982. That is when the bull market began its run. Clinton did a good job, no question. But he is hardly responsible for an economic expansion that began when he was still guvnr of hillbilly land playing tiddly winks with Jennifer Flowers.
 
"The NBER, which seems to be the definitive word on recession, defines a recession quarter as: A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade."

Darla, for most economists a RECESSION is only declared after three consecutive quarters of negative growth. Not usually defined as your above did in terms of months.
 
"Detracted from the growth but did not effect the boom ? How does that figure, if it detracts from the growth it has to slow the boom."

US... Sorry, I thought you were implying that his tax increases aided the boom. That they did not, of course by slowing the boom it affected the boom.
 
Superfreak said:
"Since the Clinton years marked the longest economic expansion in our history, the right wing machine has been at it for years, trying to credit Ronald Reagan for it."

Ummm.... The economic expansion began in 1982. That is when the bull market began its run. Clinton did a good job, no question. But he is hardly responsible for an economic expansion that began when he was still guvnr of hillbilly land playing tiddly winks with Jennifer Flowers.
Click to expand...

No it did not SF. The three longest economic expansions in our history are, 1961-1969, a period of the 1990's under Clinton and a period of the 1980's under Reagan, and in that order.

to say that the economic expansion under Clinton began under Reagan is to disregard the negative quarters and recession under bush one. If you are going to disregard downturns, you could as well make the statement that the expansion started in 1961 under JFK.
 
Superfreak said:
"The NBER, which seems to be the definitive word on recession, defines a recession quarter as: A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade."

Darla, for most economists a RECESSION is only declared after three consecutive quarters of negative growth. Not usually defined as your above did in terms of months.
Click to expand...

Yes I know this. I am stating how they define a negative quarter, or a recession quarter, and trying to find out how Kudlow is defining his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top