Liberal Forum

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2014, 4:27 pm

Back to Reagan just for a moment.

A few thoughts occur to me that haven't been discussed.

First, unemployment. Lots of numbers floating about but little comment on the fact that Reagan actually changed the way unemployment was counted (in a way that still helps out today's President, ironically).

Second, stagflation. Volcker (and Carter) can be argued to have most of the credit for solving that, by limiting the money supply and easing the pricing of oil. This is if you accept that it was driven by oil price hikes and an expansionary monetary policy under Nixon, which many do.

Third, Reagan benefited from a weak dollar (I recall getting two dollars for a pound in the 80s) and an oil glut (and reduced oil prices - under $30 a barrel).

Fourth, far from a reduced government, Reagan ended up with more government employees. The military spending increases (up 60%?) are indeed pumped into the economy via people's salaries.

Fifth, if this was all a necessary expenditure to end the Soviet Union, why was Reagan so keen on holding talks of disarmament and detente?

This is a guy who won the presidency with 50.7% of the vote. After he had struck a deal with the Iranians NOT to release hostages under Carter - offering arms to pay for their help. Sure enough, as soon as he got in - hey presto - hostages released!

He certainly left a legacy. A bit like Thatcher did over here. And people feel strongly about him, one way or the other.

I do think, however, that he failed to walk on water. He did some good things and some bad things. Mostly, I think he was a force for the worse and I track the death of the USA I remember being so fond of as a child, growing up, to him.

YMMV.

• FY 2021: $966 billion budgeted + $600 billion from pandemic impact = $1.566 trillion
• FY 2020: $1.083 trillion budgeted + $2.2 trillion from pandemic = $3.283 trillion
• FY 2019: $984 billion
• FY 2018: $779 billion

• FY 2017: $665 billion. Although Trump requested additional spending, Congress did not approve it.
• FY 2016: $585 billion
• FY 2015: $442 billion
• FY 2014: $485 billion
• FY 2013: $680 billion
• FY 2012: $1.077 trillion
• FY 2011: $1.300 trillion
• FY 2010: $1.5 trillion. This is the sum of $1.294 trillion and $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget.

• FY 2009: $1.16 trillion. This amount is calculated from $1.413 trillion, minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act.
• FY 2008: $459 billion
• FY 2007: $161 billion
• FY 2006: $248 billion
• FY 2005: $318 billion
• FY 2004: $413 billion
• FY 2003: $378 billion
• FY 2002: $158 billion

• FY 2001: $128 billion surplus
• FY 2000: $236 billion surplus
• FY 1999: $126 billion surplus
• FY 1998: $69 billion surplus
• FY 1997: $22 billion
• FY 1996: $107 billion
• FY 1995: $164 billion
• FY 1994: $203 billion

• FY 1993: $255 billion
• FY 1992: $290 billion
• FY 1991: $269 billion
• FY 1990: $221 billion

• FY 1989: $153 billion
• FY 1988: $155 billion
• FY 1987: $150 billion
• FY 1986: $221 billion
• FY 1985: $212 billion
• FY 1984: $185 billion
• FY 1983: $208 billion
• FY 1982: $128 billion

• FY 1981: $79 billion
• FY 1980: $74 billion
• FY 1979: $41 billion
• FY 1978: $59 billion

• FY 1977: $54 billion
• FY 1976: $74 billion
• FY 1975: $53 billion

• FY 1974: $6 billion
• FY 1973: $15 billion
• FY 1972: $23 billion
• FY 1971: $23 billion
• FY 1970: $3 billion

• FY 1969: $3 billion surplus
• FY 1968: $25 billion
• FY 1967: $9 billion
• FY 1966: $4 billion
• FY 1965: $1 billion

• FY 1964: $6 billion
• FY 1963: $5 billion
• FY 1962: $7 billion

• FY 1961: $3 billion
• FY 1960: $0 billion with a slight surplus
• FY 1959: $13 billion
• FY 1958: $3 billion
• FY 1957: $3 billion surplus
• FY 1956: $4 billion surplus
• FY 1955: $3 billion
• FY 1954: $1 billion

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2015, 6:32 am

I found it interesting that the graph at top looks very, very much like the graph immediately below. It seems pretty obvious that the jipper borrowed and spent his way out of trouble. The issue whether it was reagan's keynesian stimulus or his cocksuckerian tax breaks for the rich which saved murka from the fallout from the johnson/nixon breton woods backstab seems answered by this mirror which chart presents:



Excluding the various tricks intended to hit poorer Americans, like raising taxes on cigarette (but NOT pipe) tobacco, Reagan raised taxes on the bottom twice - in 1983, he raised the payroll taxes on all employees (no effect on capital gainers, or above the ceiling on big W2 earners), and in 1986 he raised the income taxes paid by the lowest paid workers - WHILE cutting top rates. Chumps like the sissies o this board ate that up - and it was against them, personally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Refor ... _tax_rates

If one looks at the big spenders of the last 35 years, one sees Rs next to their names.



Ragan was a big government, big borrowing, big spending, big regulator.

TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Year........Exec Civilians..........Military..........Judicial and legislative..........Total Federal Employees

1977........2,840,000 ..........2,112,000......53,000...............................5,005,000 .....................Ford's last Budget
1981........2,806,000 ..........2,122,000......54,000...............................4,982,000 .....................Carter's last Budget Civilian shrank, military grew
1989........3,064,000 ..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000 .....................Reagan's last Budget

As % of population, Reagan's military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats - grew by leaps and bounds.

Let's look at population. https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1 Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 6:39 pm

Lots of good information here. ^

Follow the snapback - could not quote the entire post.

RedheadedStranger » 23 Oct 2023, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 6:47 pm

You must be bored.

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 6:52 pm

Not at all. I tracked this down because threads that are not posted in for 1 year get deleted automatically - and the information in this thread took a great deal of research to compile. I am saving my bank.

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 6:52 pm

Not at all. I tracked this down because threads that are not posted in for 1 year get deleted automatically - and the information in this thread took a great deal of research to compile. I am saving my bank.

RedheadedStranger » 23 Oct 2023, 7:01 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:01 pm

Unless of course... you're not really in control here and are just faking it.
 

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm

How DARE you, sir! How DARE you?

I am going to try to get you suspended!!!

sunburn » 23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm

you can massage numbers all you want.

During the Carter years it was hard to scrape up work.

sunburn » 23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm

People were laid off and looking for work.

sunburn » 23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm

A electric shop I worked at had 274 electricians when Carter got elected, when he left office there was 42, the next year they went belly up.

sunburn » 23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:12 pm

Carter had 21% interest rates.

John » 06 Nov 2022, 2:02 am » wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022, 2:02 am

President Harry TrumanTotal = $5 billion, a 2% increase
FY 1953: $6 billion
FY 1952: $2 billion
FY 1951: $6 billion surplus
FY 1950: $3 billion
FY 1949: $1 billion surplus
FY 1948: $12 billion surplus
FY 1947: $4 billion surplus
FY 1946: $16 billion

President Franklin D. RooseveltTotal = $194 billion, a 186% increase
FY 1945: $48 billion
FY 1944: $48 billion
FY 1943: $55 billion
FY 1942: $21 billion
FY 1941: $5 billion
FY 1940: $3 billion
FY 1939: $3 billion
FY 1938: $0 billion with a slight deficit
FY 1937: $2 billion
FY 1936: $4 billion
FY 1935: $3 billion
FY 1934: $4 billion

President Herbert HooverTotal = $5 billion, a 30% increase
FY 1933: $3 billion
FY 1932: $3 billion
FY 1931: $0 billion (slight deficit)
FY 1930: $1 billion surplus

President Calvin CoolidgeTotal = $5 billion surplus, a 26% decrease
FY 1929: $1 billion surplus
FY 1928: $1 billion surplus
FY 1927: $1 billion surplus
FY 1926: $1 billion surplus
FY 1925: $1 billion surplus
FY 1924: $1 billion surplus

President Warren G. HardingTotal = $1 billion surplus, a 6% decrease
FY 1923: $1 billion surplus
FY 1922: $0 billion with a slight surplus

President Woodrow WilsonTotal = $22 billion, a 775% increase
FY 1921: $1 billion surplus
FY 1920: $0 billion with a slight surplus
FY 1919: $13 billion
FY 1918: $9 billion
FY 1917: $1 billion
FY 1916: $0 billion with a slight surplus
FY 1915: $0 billion with a slight surplus
FY 1914: $0 billion

John » 06 Nov 2022, 2:01 am » wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022, 2:01 am

Key stat to look at below is the increase/decrease in deficits or spending.
President Donald TrumpTotal Actual plus Budgeted = $6.612 trillion, a 33% increase

• FY 2021: $966 billion budgeted + $600 billion from pandemic impact = $1.566 trillion
• FY 2020: $1.083 trillion budgeted + $2.2 trillion from pandemic = $3.283 trillion
• FY 2019: $984 billion
• FY 2018: $779 billion

President Barack ObamaTotal = $6.781 trillion, a 58% increase

• FY 2017: $665 billion. Although Trump requested additional spending, Congress did not approve it.
• FY 2016: $585 billion
• FY 2015: $442 billion
• FY 2014: $485 billion
• FY 2013: $680 billion
• FY 2012: $1.077 trillion
• FY 2011: $1.300 trillion
• FY 2010: $1.5 trillion. This is the sum of $1.294 trillion and $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget.

President George W. BushTotal = $3.293 trillion, a 57% increase

• FY 2009: $1.16 trillion. This amount is calculated from $1.413 trillion, minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act.
• FY 2008: $459 billion
• FY 2007: $161 billion
• FY 2006: $248 billion
• FY 2005: $318 billion
• FY 2004: $413 billion
• FY 2003: $378 billion
• FY 2002: $158 billion

President Bill ClintonTotal = $63 billion surplus, a 1% decrease

• FY 2001: $128 billion surplus
• FY 2000: $236 billion surplus
• FY 1999: $126 billion surplus
• FY 1998: $69 billion surplus
• FY 1997: $22 billion
• FY 1996: $107 billion
• FY 1995: $164 billion
• FY 1994: $203 billion

President George H.W. BushTotal = $1.036 trillion, a 36% increase

• FY 1993: $255 billion
• FY 1992: $290 billion
• FY 1991: $269 billion
• FY 1990: $221 billion

President Ronald ReaganTotal = $1.412 trillion, a 142% increase

• FY 1989: $153 billion
• FY 1988: $155 billion
• FY 1987: $150 billion
• FY 1986: $221 billion
• FY 1985: $212 billion
• FY 1984: $185 billion
• FY 1983: $208 billion
• FY 1982: $128 billion

President Jimmy CarterTotal = $253 billion, a 36% increase

• FY 1981: $79 billion
• FY 1980: $74 billion
• FY 1979: $41 billion
• FY 1978: $59 billion

President Gerald FordTotal = $181 billion, a 38% increase

• FY 1977: $54 billion
• FY 1976: $74 billion
• FY 1975: $53 billion

President Richard NixonTotal = $70 billion, a 20% increase

• FY 1974: $6 billion
• FY 1973: $15 billion
• FY 1972: $23 billion
• FY 1971: $23 billion
• FY 1970: $3 billion

President Lyndon B. JohnsonTotal = $36 billion, an 11% increase

• FY 1969: $3 billion surplus
• FY 1968: $25 billion
• FY 1967: $9 billion
• FY 1966: $4 billion
• FY 1965: $1 billion

President John F. KennedyTotal = $18 billion, a 6% increase

• FY 1964: $6 billion
• FY 1963: $5 billion
• FY 1962: $7 billion

President Dwight EisenhowerTotal = $15 billion, a 6% increase

• FY 1961: $3 billion
• FY 1960: $0 billion with a slight surplus
• FY 1959: $13 billion
• FY 1958: $3 billion
• FY 1957: $3 billion surplus
• FY 1956: $4 billion surplus
• FY 1955: $3 billion
• FY 1954: $1 billion

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014, 3:56 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2014, 3:56 am

Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Let's see what Forbes has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:19 pm

You can repeat your programming all you want. Carter's economy created more jobs per year than did reagan's - and most of his were full time, not part time.

Run your programming, stooge.

Likely story. Even if true (highly doubtful) correlation is not causation, narrative breath.

He inherited the sins of johnson and nixon, son. Going off silver and going off breton woods had to be absorbed into the system. Carter's policies worked and reagan got the credit.

Carter's economy created in 4 years 64% of the jobs that reagan's created in 8. And reagan manipulated the tax code to INDUCE employers to offer part time employment, giving them tax breaks for each employee, regardless of house worked. His "jobs" were in many cases ****. Carter's were real work.

Mind you, Reagan's economy was eating tomorrow's lunch, whereas Carter's was paying yesterday's tab.

Here's the actual math - not your anecdotal programming:

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepat ... Jobs-1.png

Cannonpointer » 23 Oct 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Oct 2023, 7:19 pm

You can repeat your programming all you want. Carter's economy created more jobs per year than did reagan's - and most of his were full time, not part time.

Run your programming, stooge.

Likely story. Even if true (highly doubtful) correlation is not causation, narrative breath.

He inherited the sins of johnson and nixon, son. Going off silver and going off breton woods had to be absorbed into the system. Carter's policies worked and reagan got the credit.

Carter's economy created in 4 years 64% of the jobs that reagan's created in 8. And reagan manipulated the tax code to INDUCE employers to offer part time employment, giving them tax breaks for each employee, regardless of house worked. His "jobs" were in many cases ****. Carter's were real work.

Mind you, Reagan's economy was eating tomorrow's lunch, whereas Carter's was paying yesterday's tab.

Here's the actual math - not your anecdotal programming:

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepat ... Jobs-1.png