Lucky... 0 #26 February 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteWHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better? If you still think Hoover "let the economy fix itself", you obviously didn't do any of that reading I suggested a while back. I don't take requests from people who can't make arguments. See, now it's your burden to show us how Hoover did major substantial things to fix the economy. A few roads, Hoover Dam projects were quite obviously too small. If you had anything to add, you should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 February 28, 2010 QuoteWhen Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. Infl rate high Unemp at 7.5% and stable Deficit stable and not real high Debt stable and not real high http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Set the dates to: 1970 to 1990 if they change to default. Shambles? Not nearly as bad as now, but with unemp at 7.5% and infl rates high, it was bad. QuoteWe have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. Misery index was coined before Carter took office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) The 2 components aren't equal, as unemployment is far more devastating than int rates. BTW, the Jan 77 unemp rate is exactly what the Jan 81 unemp rate was, they were both stable and not greatly changing, so you are wrong again - shocker. QuoteThe automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The issue with the 70's had more to do with OPEC than anything. You can't reasonably blame Carter for teh auto industry or oil prices, since that was an issue long before. QuoteThe American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since. Nah, the Reagan recession was worse, unemp was 10.8% due to contraction of the money supply and general Reaganomics. Not to mention the GDP wasn't nearly as trashed as it was with this recent Republican Great Recession, teh banks weren't on teh verge of collapse, etc. Things were flat and tight, not upside down. QuoteThe top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. In 2 stages; 70% to 50%, then 50% to 38%. Later to 28%. QuoteAt the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Then why did the debt grow so fast if people were paying such taxes? Reagan's tax policy helped the rich. QuoteShortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. At the cost of the debt tripling. Also, it has been beaten since, during the Clinton years, made Reagan's faux success look timid; Clinton achieved success while simultaneously fixing the economy. QuoteThe misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed." It was a period of greed since the wealth disparity spread. These taxes you claim the rich had to pay is your falacy. BTW, unemployment rose as the interest rate fell, that was the offset of the misery factor; infl rates are far more a part of the index than unemp. Also, Reagan's policies took unemployment 3.3% higher than he inherited, a stable but slightly high 7.5% to 10.8%. QuoteEight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. He actually cut the military and raised taxes on his own accord. He knew crappy drawers really blew things up and wante t o fix them. He raised the top rate an additional 3% and was 'deelected' for it. I think he implemented a luxury tax too. QuoteNot surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. It wasn't that mild and it was spurred by tax cuts, esp the one in 86 that cut the top brkt from 38% to 28%. QuoteUnemployment was well below what it had been under Carter,... Accurate facts not your strong point? Unemp was between 5.6% and 7.6% under Carter, 5.0% and 7.8% under GHWB; you have no point to make, do you? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Quote...and inflation was completely under control. Really? Under Reagan in the latter years and GHWB rates were still high: http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/MortgageRates/30-year-fixed-historical.jpg Hell, even in 83 they were high. But in 90-92 they were quite high too. QuoteNevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS IGNORE THAT REAGAN'S POLICIES TRIPLED THE DEBT, CARRIED OVER TO THE GHWB PRESIDENCY AND ADDED YET ANOTHER TRILLION, THEN IT TOOK CLINTON 8 YEARS AND 1.6 TO GET IT UNDER CONTROL AND THEN WE CAN AGREE THAT REAGAN WAS A BIG SUCCESS. Why is it you guys never wanna talk the Reagan debt? The debt, which had been here since before we were even a country, was ok at 930B; very manageable. Reagan's policies took 2 presidents 12 years and at 5.5T to bring it under control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sucky... 0 #28 February 28, 2010 Lucky, your so much smarter than these people. You shouldn't waste your valuable brain power trying to explain these things to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #29 February 28, 2010 Quote I don't take requests from people who can't make arguments. See, now it's your burden to show us how Hoover did major substantial things to fix the economy. A few roads, Hoover Dam projects were quite obviously too small. If you had anything to add, you should. Really? I don't explain things to people that won't likely listen anyway. I have little to add to a thread that's based on a false pretense. I'd recommend you start with "The Hoover Presidency: A Reappraisal", pg. 102 - "Herbert Hoover and American Corporatism" by Ellis W. Hawley. If that's a little too long winded for you, you could always take a look at chapter 23 of a book written by Thomas E. Woods (a Harvard grad. who received his Ph.D. from Columbia) titled "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 February 28, 2010 Quote Really? I don't explain things to people that won't likely listen anyway. I have little to add to a thread that's based on a false pretense. This was the entirety of your response: If you still think Hoover "let the economy fix itself", you obviously didn't do any of that reading I suggested a while back. That's not an argument, that's rhetoric. Make an argument and we can go from there, I've posted ample data and evidence. Quote I'd recommend you start with "The Hoover Presidency: A Reappraisal", pg. 102 - "Herbert Hoover and American Corporatism" by Ellis W. Hawley. I recommend you quit name/book dropping and actually make a point. Quote If that's a little too long winded for you, you could always take a look at chapter 23 of a book written by Thomas E. Woods (a Harvard grad. who received his Ph.D. from Columbia) titled "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask". Running from teh issue via dropping names of books you've never read is typical of you, show us what Hoover did to remedy from the Oct 29, 29 kickoff of the GD and we can go from there, and pls do provide citations with quotes, preferably with legislative info. I get it, you and Hoover are misunderstood victims. He's like the 8th worst president of all time but it's teh damn liberals who run those collegiate polls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 February 28, 2010 QuoteLucky, your so much smarter than these people. You shouldn't waste your valuable brain power trying to explain these things to them. Replying to yourself? Wow..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #32 February 28, 2010 Quote Right, unsecured debt is a mutual problem. However, I think it should be law that unsecured debt be no more than + to 1 year salary, probably = to 1/2 year would be better. this is where I differ. I don't think it should be a law. If lenders want to loan that much more to someone based on their history of payment and ability to pay, that's their business decision. If that person defaults, then the lender eats it. They shouldn't be bailed out by the government. More severe consequences mean more thought in the lending policy.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #33 February 28, 2010 Quote You conveniently forget to mention that the national debt tripled under Reagan. He borrowed the country to imaginary prosperity using what GHW Bush called "Voodoo Economics". +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ND/GNP Ratio One last word: Note how our ND/GNP ratio has gone up during the Reagan administration from 0.35 to 0.42. Many would jump on The President for this. However, in perspective, this jump is merely a "blip" when one considers what has been accomplished - namely decreased unemployment, decreased taxes, a strengthened dollar, an armed America, inflation controlled, and the American's love of America revived! In addition, many of these deficit dollars of the last few years have been used in laying the foundation for making a greater America, having greater technical and economic depth, and with greater protection for us and our allies against Russian expansionism. Our system has proved its ability to absorb and "normalize" such tremendous ND/GNP ratios in the past, that the "Reagan Blip" is inconsequential. His policy of forcing Russia to try to match us in guns AND butter will eventually bankrupt them or cause them internal problems, either of which may just finally force them to see the handwriting on the wall: that Communism can't hold a candle to Capitalism, even though Russia has more land, greater resources, more people (with more patriotism), and better quality people, than America. One need only look at the Japanese and German miracles to see how an intelligent and industrious people can excel given Capitalism - when just 40 short years ago their countries were in rubble and ruin. Were Russia to adopt the Capitalistic System, America would indeed be buried, economically, in a generation or two, especially if they could keep the trade unions from rearing their feather-bedding heads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #34 February 28, 2010 Quote That's not an argument, that's rhetoric. Make an argument and we can go from there, I've posted ample data and evidence. Ample data and evidence? Right. Quote I recommend you quit name/book dropping and actually make a point. I recommend you pull your head out of your ass, but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Quote Running from teh issue via dropping names of books you've never read is typical of you, show us what Hoover did to remedy from the Oct 29, 29 kickoff of the GD and we can go from there, and pls do provide citations with quotes, preferably with legislative info. Books I've never read? Chapter 23 starts on page 180. It's good reading, I recommend you read it, should you actually posses the ability to read anything other the crap websites you usually post on here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
