The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[Paulhoff]

You mean, the tax rates along with the deduction schedules, loopholes, off shore investment options, dividend deduction, work related expenses deduction, medical deduction, full deduction on business use of auto, no "gas guzzler tax"?

You don't really want to discuss that, do you?

Because it will only show how Democrats have screwed the little guy since those years, while actual tax paid by the wealthy was not higher than now.

Watch Fox unNews a lot, don't you.

Paul

 

[mhaze]

Watch Fox unNews a lot, don't you.

Paul

No, and I can't recall they have ever covered this subject.

It just happens I know quite a bit about actual tax rates, allowed deductions, and tax loopholes for the 1950-1985 era (1986 was new law).

Just saying...the argument you presented is false, although it is commonly made.

 

[mhaze]

However you appear to have stretched "socialist" to the point that it is almost meaningless as a term. Indeed to the point that it means "anyone to the left of me". Which makes for a pointless discussion if a term is abused in such a way. So, calling Obama and his policies "socialist" is simply wrong. A social element does not make a policy socialist by any stretch.

It's a bit like the misuse of "liberal".

No I have not, in another thread this issue was thoroughly explored. As I recall, referencing Wikipedia on socialism yielded definitions of the term that fit Obama & crowd nicely, although as you note, other definitions did not fit.

If anything, we can agree that the imprecision of the term makes it's use a poor idea. But my opinion, is that for a long time in the USA... "socialism" has been a dirty word, not used in politics, whether by or against those promoting actual socialist policies. With the Obama gang, this has changed and they are right out in the open.

So I'll call them exactly what they are now and think that's right.

But yah, I've traveled a fair amount and am aware of vast differences in the implementation of these schemes "for the common good".

 

[Paulhoff]

No, and I can't recall they have ever covered this subject.

It just happens I know quite a bit about actual tax rates, allowed deductions, and tax loopholes for the 1950-1985 era (1986 was new law).

Just saying...the argument you presented is false, although it is commonly made.

Lawers find tax loopholes, that is why the laws have so many pages trying to cover everything, because if it isn't said to be against the law, then it isn't.

Paul

 

[mhaze]

Lawers find tax loopholes, that is why the laws have so many pages trying to cover everything, because if it isn't said to be against the law, then it isn't.

Paul

Nope, that's airy postulating. What I'm talking about is quite simple, and you can pull a tax from from the current year, and one of the prior question in question, and see the changes right there, on the base 1040, the schedule A, B, and D, plus the depreciation schedules.

There's nothing complicated or hidden in reams of law concerning this.

Here is the link to prior year forms if you care to look into it.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44227

The Fountain of Prosperity

A rebuttal of Obamanomics.

Earlier this week, President Obama attempted to blame high unemployment on automation, specifically the rising popularity of ATMs and airline ticketing kiosks. The idea is that such machines wipe out jobs by making human bank tellers and ticket counter attendants obsolete.

In reality, such machines are among the tools that help us realize a level of wealth beyond the dreams of our forefathers. Enhanced productivity does not destroy jobs. It creates them, as new markets are opened, new occupations appear, and society gains more wealth to spend. Someone must build, program, install, and maintain the ATMs. People find better things to do with the time they used to spend standing in line at banks.

The rest of the article is good reading, too. I especially liked the conclusion:

No matter how much high-flying rhetoric of “dreams” and “audacity” it adopts, the Left’s philosophy has always been perfectly captured by the communal farm, where the needs of each are fulfilled by the means of others. There is full employment in the fields, and at the workbenches where crude tools are fashioned. You don’t want to live there. No one in their right mind does.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...bama-for-lack-of-daily-economic-briefing.html

June 16, 2011

ABC News’ Mary Bruce Reports: It used to be a daily occurrence, but, despite a spate of lagging economic indicators, the president’s economic briefings have been absent from his daily schedule in recent months.

Obama has gone into hiding from the truth. Because manipulating it wasn't working.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44227

Earlier this week, President Obama attempted to blame high unemployment on automation, specifically the rising popularity of ATMs and airline ticketing kiosks. The idea is that such machines wipe out jobs by making human bank tellers and ticket counter attendants obsolete.

Well, there's certainly some truth in this. I recall from when in Africa, bacon was hand sliced, anytime a slicer was put in a kitchen it mysteriously broke. Gates at parking garages, which operate by button or card swipe, seemed to always have a man standing there. They mysteriously broke too. And these guys were very respectful, and happy to have a job.

An "Automated Car Wash" was in fact the washing of your car by .... estimate .... about 40 zulu guys, but it was run through a wash rack before the hours of going over with (nojoking) toothbrushes in every crevice...

That's not even counting the 7 guys I watched take an entire working day to replace one light bulb.

So.....

Wait....

He wants us to go down THAT ROAD, THAT PIT OF DESPAIR...

Man, even those guys that took a whole day to replace that one bulb would laugh their socks off at that idiocy.

Except they couldn't afford socks...

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The economists didn't reject it, the GOVERNMENT rejected it ...[snip]...

If that's true then I await your alternate explanation for why economists don't use shadowstats.

No one denies that Obama came into Oval Office with a recession underway ... just like Bush did. That part of this is not "all" his fault (although he and his party did have a lot to do with why a recession occurred in the first place). But at some point in time even you have to place the responsibility for what follows on his shoulders. Right? And we are now 3 years into his administration. Isn't it time?

In EVERY modern recession we've had, even very deep ones like in 1981-82, recovery was well under way by now. Every one. Which is why I can direct you to charts like this:

Do you have any evidence for this assertion or are you simply appealing to what happened in other recessions?

I suppose you're ignorant of economic history though, because any imbecile who opens up a history book can tell you the '81-82 recession was created intentionally by the Federal Reserve to counter stagflation. In fact, we've been over this in a previous thread.

Why is that? Perhaps because of something that the Presidents who faced this recession did? That's not unlogical, is it?

There's no such word as "unlogical".

What's really funny is the denial of this obvious fact and logic by democrats. What is funny is their refusal to accept the obvious … that Obama's way of dealing with the recession (with massive government intervention ... and yes, Bush did a little of that at the very end of his term via the bailouts which were arguably unnecessary and unwise) are what are keeping the economy down now.

It's hilarious that you're appealing to the '81-82 recession as a positive example of laissez-faire economic policies when the recession was created intentionally to end stagflation. It's even more hilarious when you consider that the policies which created this recession and thereby ended stagflation in the US were implemented by Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board under Obama until January of this year.

There's also the fact that, contrary to your conclusions, government spending in the 1980's as a percentage of GDP went up.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
In EVERY modern recession we've had, even very deep ones like in 1981-82, recovery was well under way by now. Every one. Which is why I can direct you to charts like this:

Do you have any evidence for this assertion or are you simply appealing to what happened in other recessions?

I suppose you're ignorant of economic history

LOL! I can only laugh that you'd say those two things back to back, given the charts on the recovery that have been posted multiple times to this thread now.

Like I said to stokes234 earlier, what part of this chart don't you understand?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YtR64k69F...4xLruY/s1600/%28%29+a+jobs+recovery+chart.jpg

There's no such word as "unlogical".

Well good for you, KF. All your schooling has at least done you *some* good. Maybe you're now qualified to run a spelling bee.

It's hilarious that you're appealing to the '81-82 recession as a positive example of laissez-faire economic policies when the recession was created intentionally to end stagflation.

What's hilarious is you thinking *they* deliberately started the '81-82 recession to end stagflation. Or is it possible that when Volcker started tightening the money supply he hoped there wouldn't be a recession? That seems more likely to me. And when one occurred anyway, and it turned out to be a very deep one, whose approach was proven right? Obama's tax and spend, spend, spend one? Or Reagan's policy of cutting taxes?

It's even more hilarious when you consider that the policies which created this recession and thereby ended stagflation in the US were implemented by Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board under Obama until January of this year.

And how'd that work out this time?

And by the way, back in 1998, it's true that Volcker had a lot to do with curtailing inflation, but it was Reagan's approach which got the economy going again. What you need to remember is that Volcker implimented monetarism, not the Keynesian economics that Obama and company have been pushing. Oh wait! I pointed that out to you previously when you claimed Volcker made "fantastic use of textbook Keynesian economics". But I guess you chose to ignore that conversation, like so many others.

There's also the fact that, contrary to your conclusions, government spending in the 1980's as a percentage of GDP went up.

LIAR. If you enlarge that chart you linked, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show= , you can see that from 1982 to January 1989 (when Reagan left office), government spending as a percent of GDP went down. And that's despite the fact that democrats didn't abide by the agreement they'd made with Reagan to cut spending. The economy boomed under Reagan, keeping the percentage about the same. Whereas under Obama and his policies …

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

LOL! I can only laugh that you'd say those two things back to back, given the charts on the recovery that have been posted multiple times to this thread now.

Like I said to stokes234 earlier, what part of this chart don't you understand?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YtR64k69F...4xLruY/s1600/%28%29+a+jobs+recovery+chart.jpg

Your chart doesn't say anything, it's a random tidbit of information that has no meaning and no context to your claim. Your claim is that the '81-82 recession was worse than the current when it started. That very well may be but it's immaterial to the current recession. The '81-82 recession was created deliberately, do you sincerely believe the Federal Reserve would force the US economy into recession without a guarantee of getting us out quickly?

Well good for you, KF. All your schooling has at least done you *some* good. Maybe you're now qualified to run a spelling bee.

Ahh, the hardline conservative ever proud of his ignorance and lack of formal education. At the very least my education has taught me how to make my point without lying.

What's hilarious is you thinking *they* deliberately started the '81-82 recession to end stagflation. Or is it possible that when Volcker started tightening the money supply he hoped there wouldn't be a recession? That seems more likely to me.

Irrelevant. It had to have been understood that recession was likely or at the least very possible, if not guaranteed. Ending stagflation was judged to have greater long-term benefits than it would short-term losses. The bottom-line is that Volcker saw the problem, the solution, and fixed it. A triumphant example of government interference in the economy.

And when one occurred anyway, and it turned out to be a very deep one, whose approach was proven right? Obama's tax and spend, spend, spend one? Or Reagan's policy of cutting taxes?

What proponents of Reaganomics don't realize is that they're nothing more than the dark matter clones of Keynesians. Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, and racked up a large deficit that he gleefully ignored until it became a problem for someone else to deal with. The difference between Reagan and Keynesians is that Keynesians don't advocate deficit spending during an economic upturn.

And how'd that work out this time?

Good, for all we know. Unless you have an alternate reality machine to argue otherwise.

And by the way, back in 1998, it's true that Volcker had a lot to do with curtailing inflation, but it was Reagan's approach which got the economy going again.

1998 was the tail-end of the Clinton years, I'm talking about the recession he caused in the early 80's to curtail stagflation. Interesting that you give Reagan credit for a booming economy he not only didn't preside over, but that you ignore the fact that the economy began recovery when Volcker eased the restrictions on the money-supply.

What you need to remember is that Volcker implimented monetarism, not the Keynesian economics that Obama and company have been pushing.

Irrelevant. It's not a move that Keynesians today would oppose ergo it isn't relevant to the monetarism v. Keynesian debate.

Oh wait! I pointed that out to you previously when you claimed Volcker made "fantastic use of textbook Keynesian economics". But I guess you chose to ignore that conversation, like so many others.

Most-likely because it's irrelevant. Our understanding of economics today is better than it was in the 80's. Or do you seriously believe that the proponents of Keynesian economics on these forums are all carbon-copies of what Keynes argued for in the early 1900's?

LIAR. If you enlarge that chart you linked, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show= , you can see that from 1982 to January 1989 (when Reagan left office), government spending as a percent of GDP went down.

Irrelevant, spending went up during the recession not down. This is contrary to your claim.

And that's despite the fact that democrats didn't abide by the agreement they'd made with Reagan to cut spending. The economy boomed under Reagan, keeping the percentage about the same. Whereas under Obama and his policies

Of course, none of that changes anything nor validates any of your claims.

 

[mhaze]

....do you sincerely believe the Federal Reserve would force the US economy into recession without a guarantee of getting us out quickly? ....

wow....

You mean that Federal Reserve that does what it is told to do by politicians?

You are talking GUARANTEES?

Economics in practice has no guarantees for you, bucko. It's the net sum of the decisions by a subset of humans. There is no top down control of that. What matters in economics is not your political theory but your, and others, behavior.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Off-topic rambling noted

 

[mhaze]

Good dodge! You saw the fork in the road, the enemy of Right unlogic ahead, turned left and are sinking in the quicksand of progressive delusions.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Continued off-topic ranting is also noted.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your chart doesn't say anything, it's a random tidbit of information that has no meaning and no context to your claim. Your claim is that the '81-82 recession was worse than the current when it started.

No, the specific claim I made was this:

In EVERY modern recession we've had, even very deep ones like in 1981-82, recovery was well under way by now.

It was to that statement that you replied. My claim was clearly not whether the 81/82 recession was worse than the current one when it started. It had to do with what the recovery should be looking like, now that the recession is supposedly over (according to the NBER). And you responded thus:

Do you have any evidence for this assertion or are you simply appealing to what happened in other recessions?

I suppose you're ignorant of economic history

And that chart I supplied in response says a lot about THAT issue.

The '81-82 recession was created deliberately

That's only a claim so far. You haven't proven it. While Volcker may have harbored some fear that his actions could cause a recession, it seems likely that he hoped they wouldn't. In which case, the '81-82 recession would not have been intentional, but an unwanted side effect.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well good for you, KF. All your schooling has at least done you *some* good. Maybe you're now qualified to run a spelling bee.

Ahh, the hardline conservative ever proud of his ignorance and lack of formal education.

You know absolutely nothing about my education, KF.

At the very least my education has taught me how to make my point without lying.

But it turns out you did lie. Because unlogical is indeed a word. Here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlogical

unlogical - lacking in correct logical relation

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/unlogical.htm

UNLOGICAL (adjective)

Meaning:
Lacking in correct logical relation
Synonyms:
illogical; unlogical

http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/illogical

Synonyms, Thesaurus & Antonyms of 'illogical'

1. (adj) illogical, unlogical
lacking in correct logical relation
Synonyms:*unlogical

http://www.memidex.com/illogical+unlogical

illogical (unlogical)
Definition:
lacking in correct logical relation

adjective

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/unlogical

Adj.
1.
unlogical - lacking in correct logical relation
Synonyms: illogical

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070807114731AAAkMjK

I would have thought it's not a word at all, but it's actually in the OED. Seven examples are cited between around 1661 and 1922. So it has been an English word, however rare.

You see? Maybe I date myself?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What's hilarious is you thinking *they* deliberately started the '81-82 recession to end stagflation. Or is it possible that when Volcker started tightening the money supply he hoped there wouldn't be a recession? That seems more likely to me.

Irrelevant.

That's not irrelevant at all to your claim that *they* intentionally started a recession. If Volcker hoped that there wouldn't be a recession, then it's illogical to claim he intentionally started one. It appears you have your own set of problems with the use of English.

It had to have been understood that recession was likely or at the least very possible, if not guaranteed.

The fact that something is possible does not make it intentional should it occur. Now I'm sure there are now plenty of sources claiming it was intentional, but can you cite anything written or said by Volcker himself at the time or since to substantiate that. Because otherwise it's just speculation. One that's rather irrelevant to the issue at hand in any case.

A triumphant example of government interference in the economy.

In stopping inflation, yes. But not in getting the country out of the stagnation and recession that occurred as a result. The cure for that was Reagan's approach of reducing taxes and trying to reduce spending, rather than increasing government spending and taxes. And THAT is the claim I defended when I first responded to you above. Clearly Reagan's approach of non-interference in the economy was triumphant over the approach Obama is pursuing.

What proponents of Reaganomics don't realize is that they're nothing more than the dark matter clones of Keynesians. Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, and racked up a large deficit that he gleefully ignored until it became a problem for someone else to deal with.

LOL! No, as your own source showed, the debt as a percentage of GDP went DOWN under Reagan. And as long as that ratio is decreasing, it doesn't matter how big the debt is in absolute terms. The economy is growing more healthy. That situation is sustainable. But what Obama is doing is not … not even remotely. And by the way, the reason absolute spending went up during Reagan's tenure is that democrats broke their agreement to cut social program spending while Reagan was busy fighting (and winning) the Cold War. At least we got something beneficial and tangible for Reagan's spending. The same cannot be said for much of the social program spending of the 80's and 90's pushed by democrats.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And how'd that work out this time?

Good, for all we know.

LOL! So you think the situation now is good? You agree with the head of the DNC?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And by the way, back in 1998, it's true that Volcker had a lot to do with curtailing inflation, but it was Reagan's approach which got the economy going again.

1998 was the tail-end of the Clinton years

Sorry, I meant to say 1988. But then that should have been obvious to you.

Interesting that you give Reagan credit for a booming economy he not only didn't preside over

But Reagan did preside over a booming economy. According to a 1996 study by the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120 )

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

And what have we gotten for Obama's trillion dollar (plus) stimulus agenda … whose primary goal was indeed to reduce unemployment? Massive debts, high unemployment, an economic team that has run back to their ivory towers having failed miserably, and a DNC and administration so divorced from reality that their heads are competing for the Stuck On Stupid award.

In fact, our current situation is not all that different from the UK's following the '82 recession. By the end of '82, the UK's economy was growing again (positive GDP growth), but massive unemployment hung around. And by the summer of 1984, the unemployment rate had hit a new high (since the Great Depression): http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/UK_unemployment_rate_1970_2009.jpg . And it remained above 10% until 1987 when (guess what?) Chancellor Nigel Lawson cut taxes, sparking an economic boom. Just like Reagan did much earlier. Just like Obama should be doing now.

you ignore the fact that the economy began recovery when Volcker eased the restrictions on the money-supply.

But that wouldn't have done anything had Reagan not also cut taxes. If he hadn't, you'd have seen much the same thing as now. Seriously, do you think the money supply is restricted now? Do you know what the Fed's discount rate was AFTER Volcker eased restrictions? 8.5% Do you know what the discount rate is right now? Close to 0%? There's literally no more blood to squeeze from THAT turnip.

Or do you seriously believe that the proponents of Keynesian economics on these forums are all carbon-copies of what Keynes argued for in the early 1900's?

LOL! Well, they obviously haven't learned all that much in all those years. Personally, I suspect they are just doing what liberals/leftists have done time and again when the reputation of a specific label soured. Change the label rather than the underlying beliefs. Which is why today you call yourselves progressives rather than liberals, moderates rather than leftists.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LIAR. If you enlarge that chart you linked, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...&local=s&show= , you can see that from 1982 to January 1989 (when Reagan left office), government spending as a percent of GDP went down.

Irrelevant, spending went up during the recession not down. This is contrary to your claim.

It is not irrelevant. You claimed that your chart showed that "government spending in the 1980's as a percentage of GDP went up." And your chart actually shows just the opposite. So you either lied or you didn't bother to look at your chart before you linked us to it.

And surely you know by now, because conservatives (and I) have said it enough, that when we talk of government spending going down, we are talking about government spending as a percentage of the GDP going down. For all I care, government (federal, state, local) could spend $50 trillion a year … if the GDP were $500 trillion (to pick a number). Because that's clearly sustainable. But a government spending over 40% of GDP (as it is now … http://www.americanthinker.com/foy government spending per gdp_cropped.png ) is definitely not sustainable. And as things currently stand, by 2080 the Federal government alone may be spending that percentage of GDP. Unless we put the brakes to unwise, liberal, socialist policies NOW. The coming election may determine whether this country sinks or swims.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

LIAR. If you enlarge that chart you linked, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show= , you can see that from 1982 to January 1989 (when Reagan left office), government spending as a percent of GDP went down.

I just now had the inclination to check but look at this. Spending under Reagan increased, precisely as I said it did.

 

[mhaze]

I just now had the inclination to check but look at this. Spending under Reagan increased, precisely as I said it did.

Spending as a percent of GDP went down under Reagan, as noted by BAC. It's necessary to consider spending not as absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP for several reasons.

A. Inflation...the ratio is similar to constant value dollar adjustment
B. Effect of purposeful small inflation on GDP (eg a multiplier effect)

I'm sure you have a point?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, the specific claim I made was this:

It was to that statement that you replied. My claim was clearly not whether the 81/82 recession was worse than the current one when it started. It had to do with what the recovery should be looking like, now that the recession is supposedly over (according to the NBER). And you responded thus:

And that chart I supplied in response says a lot about THAT issue.

It says nothing, actually, it's merely a means for you to facilitate your affirmation of the consequent. The fact remains that you're clueless as to what recovery should look like now so you appealed to an artificial recession to make your point.

That's only a claim so far. You haven't proven it. While Volcker may have harbored some fear that his actions could cause a recession, it seems likely that he hoped they wouldn't. In which case, the '81-82 recession would not have been intentional, but an unwanted side effect.

Then you should look up the US monetary supply sometime, Volcker tightened the monetary supply a second time in the middle of the a recession. The clearly tells me Volcker considered the possibility of ending high inflation more important than a temporary dip in the economy. People who fear causing a recession because of their actions generally don't decide to make it worse after a recession has occurred. No, it seems more likely to me that Volcker was aware this could cause a recession and he considered it a secondary concern to eliminating high inflation.

You know absolutely nothing about my education, KF.

I sincerely doubt you have one.

But it turns out you did lie. Because unlogical is indeed a word. Here:

You see? Maybe I date myself?

This is why I say you might be lacking in education, you still don't understand the difference between lying and being mistaken. It's extremely childish to assume that every-time someone is wrong they lied.

However, I wasn't wrong. Your argument is that a handful of free online dictionaries claim it's a synonym of illogical and one guy on yahoo answers mentions it was used a few times but provides no citations. You didn't even think to go to a reputable source, like the Oxford-English dictionary which has no entry for "unlogical". It does, however, have one for "illogical" which is precisely what your belief that link-spam constitutes evidence.

That's not irrelevant at all to your claim that *they* intentionally started a recession. If Volcker hoped that there wouldn't be a recession, then it's illogical to claim he intentionally started one. It appears you have your own set of problems with the use of English.

Precisely, which is why it'd be unusual for him to continue his contractionary monetary policy in the face of a recession he wanted to avoid.

The fact that something is possible does not make it intentional should it occur. Now I'm sure there are now plenty of sources claiming it was intentional, but can you cite anything written or said by Volcker himself at the time or since to substantiate that. Because otherwise it's just speculation. One that's rather irrelevant to the issue at hand in any case.

I doubt he would go to the public and say he intentionally caused a recession. That's career suicide, you know?

n stopping inflation, yes. But not in getting the country out of the stagnation and recession that occurred as a result. The cure for that was Reagan's approach of reducing taxes and trying to reduce spending, rather than increasing government spending and taxes. And THAT is the claim I defended when I first responded to you above. Clearly Reagan's approach of non-interference in the economy was triumphant over the approach Obama is pursuing.

Except that Reagan didn't decrease spending during the recession, spending increased. In fact, Reagan didn't decrease spending at all. Spending as a percentage of the GDP went down in the mid-late 80's but spending as a whole increased under Reagan. Reagan waltzed in and cut welfare programs then increased spending in other areas under the false notion that tax cuts pay for themselves.

LOL! No, as your own source showed, the debt as a percentage of GDP went DOWN under Reagan. And as long as that ratio is decreasing, it doesn't matter how big the debt is in absolute terms.

Except that my source wasn't a measure of debt as a percentage of GDP, it was a measure of spending as a percentage of GDP.

The economy is growing more healthy. That situation is sustainable. But what Obama is doing is not … not even remotely.

Irrelevant.

And by the way, the reason absolute spending went up during Reagan's tenure is that democrats broke their agreement to cut social program spending while Reagan was busy fighting (and winning) the Cold War. At least we got something beneficial and tangible for Reagan's spending. The same cannot be said for much of the social program spending of the 80's and 90's pushed by democrats.

Right, the "economic deadwood" doesn't need food, shelter, or clothing. None of this changes the fact that Reagan saw what the democrats were doing and didn't push for spending cuts in any other areas nor even an increase in taxes. Instead he let the debt increase under the belief that his tax cuts were paying for everything.

LOL! So you think the situation now is good? You agree with the head of the DNC?

I would like the situation to be better but I suspect we're better now than we could've been.

Sorry, I meant to say 1988. But then that should have been obvious to you.

You've said some outlandish things in the past. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you attributed the economic boom under Clinton to Reagan.

But Reagan did preside over a booming economy. According to a 1996 study by the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120 )

I never said otherwise

And what have we gotten for Obama's trillion dollar (plus) stimulus agenda … whose primary goal was indeed to reduce unemployment? Massive debts, high unemployment, an economic team that has run back to their ivory towers having failed miserably, and a DNC and administration so divorced from reality that their heads are competing for the Stuck On Stupid award.

And your solution to the problem is? Tax cuts? Which would be...more stimulus? What a terribly Keynesian proposal.

In fact, our current situation is not all that different from the UK's following the '82 recession. By the end of '82, the UK's economy was growing again (positive GDP growth), but massive unemployment hung around. And by the summer of 1984, the unemployment rate had hit a new high (since the Great Depression): http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/UK_unemployment_rate_1970_2009.jpg . And it remained above 10% until 1987 when (guess what?) Chancellor Nigel Lawson cut taxes, sparking an economic boom. Just like Reagan did much earlier. Just like Obama should be doing now.

I find it amazing that your ilk is unwilling to call tax cuts in these situations what they really are, stimulus. Didn't Obama cut taxes anyway?

But that wouldn't have done anything had Reagan not also cut taxes. If he hadn't, you'd have seen much the same thing as now. Seriously, do you think the money supply is restricted now? Do you know what the Fed's discount rate was AFTER Volcker eased restrictions? 8.5% Do you know what the discount rate is right now? Close to 0%? There's literally no more blood to squeeze from THAT turnip.

Oh I agree, Reagan cut taxes and injected stimulus into the economy. He even increased spending, including deficit spending, during the worst of the recession. Perfectly in-line with Keynesian views. Though I suspect many Keynesians would question what we're getting for those tax cuts and whether directly injecting money into the economy wouldn't be better. But, hey, Reagan did that too.

LOL! Well, they obviously haven't learned all that much in all those years. Personally, I suspect they are just doing what liberals/leftists have done time and again when the reputation of a specific label soured. Change the label rather than the underlying beliefs. Which is why today you call yourselves progressives rather than liberals, moderates rather than leftists.

What was that you said earlier about speculation?

It is not irrelevant. You claimed that your chart showed that "government spending in the 1980's as a percentage of GDP went up." And your chart actually shows just the opposite. So you either lied or you didn't bother to look at your chart before you linked us to it.

False dilemma, it could also be that, in my haste, I skipped over an entire word. As a matter of fact, that's precisely true. I forgot to add "early" between "the" and "1980's".

And surely you know by now, because conservatives (and I) have said it enough, that when we talk of government spending going down, we are talking about government spending as a percentage of the GDP going down. For all I care, government (federal, state, local) could spend $50 trillion a year … if the GDP were $500 trillion (to pick a number). Because that's clearly sustainable. But a government spending over 40% of GDP (as it is now … http://www.americanthinker.com/foy government spending per gdp_cropped.png ) is definitely not sustainable. And as things currently stand, by 2080 the Federal government alone may be spending that percentage of GDP. Unless we put the brakes to unwise, liberal, socialist policies NOW. The coming election may determine whether this country sinks or swims.

...except your claim was that Reagan put the breaks to spending and issued tax cuts which is why the economy recovered so swiftly in the early 80's recession. I, frankly, couldn't give less of a damn what you mean by "spending" in this case as you're wrong by any definition. Total spending increased during the recession and the 80's at large and spending as a percentage of GDP increased during the recession.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Spending as a percent of GDP went down under Reagan, as noted by BAC. It's necessary to consider spending not as absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP for several reasons.

A. Inflation...the ratio is similar to constant value dollar adjustment
B. Effect of purposeful small inflation on GDP (eg a multiplier effect)

I'm sure you have a point?

My point is that you and BAC are playing a game with numbers. When the numbers make Obama look good you use shadowstats to make him look bad. When the numbers make a Republican look good you use them. You've both affirmed this admirably.

However, spending as a percentage of the GDP increased during the recession. Precisely what part of that aren't you two understanding? This whole thing seems like an obvious case of switching the goal posts to me.