Unemployment: Obama vs REAGAN (OMG!!)
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
Switzerland, Iceland, Luxemburg, Scandinavian Countries except Sweden, and believe it or not, Bermuda, as a result of the wealthy hiding funds. The US was number 7 over all. UBS Research has the US even further down in its research on real wages worldwide. The US has been supassed by the EU in GDP, but I think there is a slight gap of GDP per capita in the US, but apparently that doesn't translate to higher wages. Average hourly wage in the US is far down the list when compared to the countries of the EU, Switzerland, Scandinavia and Japan.
There is no official source for wealth distribution because no government body would dare publish it, but the University of California, Santa Cruz has a survey showing the top 1% having 34% of US net worth and 42% of the wealth, while the bottom 80% has 15% of the nations net worth and but 7% of the wealth. The "irrelevent" median income figures showing the drift downward since the 80s are from the Dept of Commerce.
Who the Hell is talking about who can kick ass in a war? What difference does the size of a country make in comparing standards of living? The EU in its entirety is as large as the US. Your claimed "MBA" taught you nothing. When/if you sign off on an audit do you conclude that company A can kick Company B's ass in a fist fight because Company B is smaller?
When you say "lower", what is your comparison?
Get help.
I would claim that the same could be said vice-versa, re: the Reagan "legacy". Your guys would love the country to forget Nixon, the bushes, and the GOP Congress, What else do you have?
'Supply Side' was the core economic policy of the Reagan Administration along with deficit spending, yet none of you will defend it and prove its success with numbers.
You may call me whatever you want, it reveals more about you than about me. As an "accountant" you should know numbers are a better way to verify a position since numbers don't lie.
I'm very impressed with your resume'. I don't want to brag, however, I never wanted for anything once I embarked on my career, and my contact with accountants was usually as their employer.
As far as stocks are concerned, a 10x factor, to me, indicates nothing, but if it makes you happy......
Topspin
Verified User
During the Reagan Era GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or the total output of the nation) grew substantially. Overall the economy expanded by a third, or the equivalent of the entire West German economy.
Looking at the growth by quarter, we can see that the economy was quite sluggish at the end of the Carter Era. The two recessions during the Carter budget years were a sign of the inability of that adminstration to achieve an extended period of growth.
But as predicted by Supply Side economic theory, the across-the-board marginal rate cuts for the Federal income tax spurred not just a long period of growth, but the longest in peace-time history at that point in time.
When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%. As a comparison, average annual growth for the twelve years from 1990-2001 (since Reagan) was 2.95%, for 1991-2001 (previous trough to peak) it was 3.05% and for 1992-2001 (the last expansion) it was 3.4%.
So the Reagan expansion growth was better than the last expansion by almost a full percent per year and the growth for all the Reagan years was greater than the growth since by half a percent. That's a lot of support for the claim that Reagan's policies have produced the best growth in a generation. (The average growth for the eight Clinton years was 3.55%, and it was part of the last expansion period.)
Looking at the growth by quarter, we can see that the economy was quite sluggish at the end of the Carter Era. The two recessions during the Carter budget years were a sign of the inability of that adminstration to achieve an extended period of growth.
But as predicted by Supply Side economic theory, the across-the-board marginal rate cuts for the Federal income tax spurred not just a long period of growth, but the longest in peace-time history at that point in time.
When the Reagan economic program took effect in 1982, the economy took off and never looked back, growing at an average annual rate of 4.3%. As a comparison, average annual growth for the twelve years from 1990-2001 (since Reagan) was 2.95%, for 1991-2001 (previous trough to peak) it was 3.05% and for 1992-2001 (the last expansion) it was 3.4%.
So the Reagan expansion growth was better than the last expansion by almost a full percent per year and the growth for all the Reagan years was greater than the growth since by half a percent. That's a lot of support for the claim that Reagan's policies have produced the best growth in a generation. (The average growth for the eight Clinton years was 3.55%, and it was part of the last expansion period.)
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
There you go talking about Nixon and Bush when the subject is Reagan. How odd.
According to the figures(Dept of Commerce) I have, the GDP number during Carter was +2.1% over 4 years, under Reagan it was +2.9% over 8 years.
Topspin
Verified User
now compare them with the inflation numbers, man do you invest at all?
These are the numbers as reported by Commerce, they differed from yours and I posted it. GDP numbers are adjusted for inflation. The % would not differ as long as all years were adjusted. What does it have to do with investing, another favorite ploy of yours?
"Man", yes, does that make either one of us a hero?
Irrelevant, unless you would like to discuss the Great Stock Market Crash of October, 1987 under Reagan.(not Carter)
Last edited:
You should take note that it was not I that brought Carter and Clinton into the thread. I merely took the cue of why you and yours deify Reagan because you have nothing else. His name is on everything but the public rest room
(I think) in Red States.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I know of no Conservative that deifies Reagan; we deify God.
Topspin
Verified User
Looking at the growth by quarter, we can see that the economy was quite sluggish at the end of the Carter Era. The two recessions during the Carter budget years were a sign of the inability of that adminstration to achieve an extended period of growth.
But as predicted by Supply Side economic theory, the across-the-board marginal rate cuts for the Federal income tax spurred not just a long period of growth, but the longest in peace-time history at that point in time.
But as predicted by Supply Side economic theory, the across-the-board marginal rate cuts for the Federal income tax spurred not just a long period of growth, but the longest in peace-time history at that point in time.
Am I to understand that there were no recessions generated after 'Supply Side' was initiated during the Reagan and BushI years? We won't discuss the bushII depression, also 'Supply Side'. Was there a Keynesian effect during the Reagan years through ramped up Defense spending, deficit spending, and government growth?
Topspin
Verified User
I'm not sure what your capable of understanding. It's generally excepted that it was the longest peace time expansion ever.
Topspin
Verified User
double digit inflation under carter vs single under Reagan.
Only a simpleton would try to argue Carter's economy better than Reagans.
Or a limosine liberal, I'm guessing your a limosine liberal in the below 20% that loved Carter.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Supply side was never implemented....we got the tax cuts but Tip O'Neil wouldn't come through with the spending cuts.....
"There you go again" (Quoting your hero.) When out of facts you revert to the above crap. I never said or thought Carter's economy was better than Reagan's, I merely brought forth the myth of Reagan/Laffer 'Supply Side' Economics and its history of failure.
I don't have a limo any more.
Last edited: