The Big 3

Cyclone85 · 05-28-2008, 08:41 PM

It's a little more complicated than that. As we know, Reagan inherited a bloody Carter economy that turned into significant employment issues, historic inflation, little or no growth, and a painful farm crisis. Do you think the farm crisis had anything to do with the employment figures? Reagan was not the cause of these (he didn't have time to), but he did inherit them. He spent a good portion of the first 4-years to get things turned around. He was able to bring the unemployment figures the last 2-years to be lower than Carter's, which I quoted in a previous reply.

I can almost guarantee it, if Reagan had not defeated Carter in 49-states and DC, those unemployment figures, inflation, and interest rates would have been just as bad or worse for Carter. Carter's response clearly would have been to create more government jobs which is never a permanent fix.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Unemployment rates were much higher under Reagan. Take the average of his two terms and compare to Carter, Carter wins.

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm675.cfm

ban basketball · 05-28-2008, 10:17 PM

If Reagan inherited these problems, and spent the first term trying to fix these problems, then I am led to ask a complicated problem, once again, for this "Reagan legacy." He put his big tax cuts in in his first term. After that point, he began his tax raising ways to make up for this mistake.

If, in fact, he spent the first term making up for Carter's mess, while also putting in these tax cuts, which apparently made the economy boom, then how was he "making up for Carter's mess" during this apparently booming first term?

Sounds like more perplexing disconnect with the "Reagan legacy."

Cyclone85 · 05-28-2008, 10:37 PM

B -- nearly every iteration, permutation, and combination of these questions has been dealt with in 2 separate threads. You're clearly in no mood to accept any answer that anybody has, and you appear to be incorrigible with regard to Reagan. (Likewise -- I could never be convinced of goodness in Carter with the exception of the home brewing deal). In your own words, this is becoming tedious.

I will admit, I have not read the study (link below), but I thought the first page or two sounded very interesting. Below is a study from CATO which discusses some of what we're talking about.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

It may end up confirming or disproving some of what each of us have said. BTW -- I have exchanged emails with CATO on health insurance issues in my professional capacity. I don't agree with everything that CATO stands for, however, they do have some very solid people there with excellent credentials.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

If Reagan inherited these problems, and spent the first term trying to fix these problems, then I am led to ask a complicated problem, once again, for this "Reagan legacy." He put his big tax cuts in in his first term. After that point, he began his tax raising ways to make up for this mistake.

If, in fact, he spent the first term making up for Carter's mess, while also putting in these tax cuts, which apparently made the economy boom, then how was he "making up for Carter's mess" during this apparently booming first term?

Sounds like more perplexing disconnect with the "Reagan legacy."

Tight-Waist · 05-29-2008, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Unemployment rates were much higher under Reagan. Take the average of his two terms and compare to Carter, Carter wins.

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm675.cfm

This is an average of the entire term of office. The worst of the Carter economy did NOT end when he left office as a matter of fact, it got worse for a while BEFORE it got better. A better reflection of this would have been the unemployment rate 6 months into the Reagan Administration vs 6 months after he left. And the same with Carter frankly.
Since I dont have that the best I can reproduce is Carter verses Reagan's second term and Bush, Sr. Carter: 6.54; Reagan: 6.43; Bush 5.53.
.

Cyclone85 · 05-29-2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

This is an average of the entire term of office. The worst of the Carter economy did NOT end when he left office as a matter of fact, it got worse for a while BEFORE it got better. A better reflection of this would have been the unemployment rate 6 months into the Reagan Administration vs 6 months after he left. And the same with Carter frankly.
Since I dont have that the best I can reproduce is Carter verses Reagan's second term and Bush, Sr. Carter: 6.54; Reagan: 6.43; Bush 5.53.
.

I responded similarly in the 'Toss These People Out of America' thread:

One more note on unemployment (from the Dept. of Labor) -- Carter's avg. unemployment rate his last 2-years was 6.6% (79/80) vs. Reagan's 5.85% showing in 87/88 (avg). Reagan was given an awful economy by Carter (paid for and incurred under Carter's watch), and so he did have to deal with weakness. The unemployment rate did grow during the first 2-years of his presidency, thanks to Carter's policies. After it peaked in 1982, it fell every single year until he left office with a 5.5% unemployment rate in 1988.

This is all available from www.bls.gov (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Also, the CATO study above (I read it...see my previous post) is excellent in my opinion.

ban basketball · 05-29-2008, 01:40 PM

And I continue to ask: When, then, did the big economic boom occur during Reagan's presidency, specifically, all of the job creation as a result of "trickle down?" The tax cuts were put in almost immediately in his first term.

I hope that you can see how something isn't adding up for me?

Cyclone85 · 05-29-2008, 02:02 PM

It does add up....everybody won, but you're just unable to see it through your blinders. Read the CATO study and then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

And I continue to ask: When, then, did the big economic boom occur during Reagan's presidency, specifically, all of the job creation as a result of "trickle down?" The tax cuts were put in almost immediately in his first term.

I hope that you can see how something isn't adding up for me?

ban basketball · 05-29-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

It does add up....everybody won, but you're just unable to see it through your blinders. Read the CATO study and then we'll talk.

False. Inflation is the one big variable that they don't like to tell you about. Just as people "earn more" today than what they did twenty years ago, take inflation into account, and the bottom 40% (now creeping into 50%) has either held even, and the bottom 20% has even dropped.

People on top made out MUCH beter under Reagan; no comparison.

Here's an article to explain how the Reagan numbers get presented to us. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Cyclone85 · 05-29-2008, 02:43 PM

A newspaper opinion written by a democrat vs. people with MBAs and PhDs.....

Originally Posted by ban basketball

False. Inflation is the one big variable that they don't like to tell you about. Just as people "earn more" today than what they did twenty years ago, take inflation into account, and the bottom 40% (now creeping into 50%) has either held even, and the bottom 20% has even dropped.

People on top made out MUCH beter under Reagan; no comparison.

Here's an article to explain how the Reagan numbers get presented to us. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

ban basketball · 05-29-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

A newspaper opinion written by a democrat vs. people with MBAs and PhDs.....

What's incorrect about it? As I famously say, "bias does not necesarily mean inaccurate." We all have bias.

The Big 3

Politics & Religion