Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Economy

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:43:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I spent A LOT of time looking at BLS data to look at the macroeconomic performance under President's Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Interesting results:

Average Annual Growth in Total Employment

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 1.9%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 1.6%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 0.3%

Average Annual Growth in Real GDP

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 3.5%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 3.6%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 1.4%

Average Annual Growth in Total Population

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 0.9%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 1.2%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 0.9%

Average Annual Growth in Real GDP per Capita

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 2.6%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 2.5%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 0.5%

Average Annual Growth in Real GDP per Employed Person

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 1.5%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 2.0%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 1.2%

Average Annual Growth in Employed Persons per Capita

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 1.0%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 0.4%
Bush (2001 to 2009): -0.7%

Average Annual Growth in Real GDP per Hour Worked

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 1.3%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 1.9%
Bush (2001 to 2009): 1.9%

Average Annual Growth in Hours Worked per Capita

Reagan (1981 to 1989): 1.2%
Clinton (1993 to 2001): 0.6%
Bush (2001 to 2009): -1.4%
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It'd be interesting to see debt thrown into that mix. My impression is that Clinton'd do much better than Reagan or Bush.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:45:40 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
It'd be interesting to see debt thrown into that mix. My impression is that Clinton'd do much better than Reagan or Bush.

Probably. But, you have to realize that Clinton had low interest rates and a military that could shrink because the soviet union had just collapsed.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:56:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A few conclusions I draw here:

1.) Reagan and Clinton's economy performed roughly the same, with Bush's doing much worse.

2.) Reagan's economic growth was mostly based on people working more. A rough measure of how much people are working is hours worked per capita, which grew at 1.2% annually under Reagan. Meanwhile, Clinton's economic growth was mostly based on people being more productive per hour worked. After all, hours worked per capita only grew at 0.6% annually under Clinton, but GDP per hour worked did better under Clinton than Reagan.

3.) Adding to the above point, my view is that the president's policies has more ability to improve how much people are working than how productive they are during the time they are working. This leads me to believe that Reagan is more responsible for the strong economic growth under him than Clinton is for the economic growth during his presidency.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:11:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
lol

Nostalgia, sorry.

?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:39:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.

Mr Knukle, tell me about your day. I want to hear everything.

The bell tolls.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.

Very true. Most of the good economic results under Clinton were due to luck. As Friedman once said, "Clinton had the good sense to become president right before a major economic boom".

However, as you'll see in my above comments, Reagan's recovery came mostly as a result of job growth and people working more, which is because of successful supply side policies.

Bush, on the other hand, saw a return to old fashioned Keynesianism, which didn't work.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:46:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:39:24 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.

Mr Knukle, tell me about your day. I want to hear everything.

The bell tolls.

http://joyreactor.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:48:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:46:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:39:24 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.

Mr Knukle, tell me about your day. I want to hear everything.

The bell tolls.

http://joyreactor.com...

Please. I think you must be disturbed.
The Bell Tolls
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:48:41 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:46:59 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:39:24 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
At 7/19/2012 3:35:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Clinton obviously had an amazing economy, but it was not really due to his fiscal policies. The only time that the deficit became a surplus was because the economy was booming and more people were entering higher tax brackets- contrary to popular belief, Clinton did not alter any taxation method near the time of the surplus or after. This begs the question of why was the economy so good? The simple answer is that Clinton presided over a huge Internet boom, that ultimately caused the economy to do really well for a short period of time and then collapse in 2001.

Before anybody launches a "liberal economic policy is better" rhetoric due to Clinton, it is good to know that he virtually had nothing to do with it.

Mr Knukle, tell me about your day. I want to hear everything.

The bell tolls.

http://joyreactor.com...

Please. I think you must be disturbed.
The Bell Tolls
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 5:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
BTW,

To me, this data supports the idea that Reagan's economic policies were the best.

Clinton and Reagan had roughly the same economic growth rates. However, Clinton's growth came from productivity per hour and Reagan's came from people working more hours.

A president's policies has more effect over how much people are working. Productivity per hour has more to do with long term things and structural polices, not what the current president is doing.

Clinton's boom was not really Clinton's boom. It was the internet boom. This was a good thing, but Clinton does not deserve credit.

Reagan's boom, on the other hand, has to do with employment growth. Reagan does deserve credit here.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 5:04:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
BTW,

To me, this data supports the idea that Reagan's economic policies were the best.

BS

Clinton and Reagan had roughly the same economic growth rates. However, Clinton's growth came from productivity per hour and Reagan's came from people working more hours.

Sorry to burst the joy of thinking that Reagan's policies worked "amazingly", but 100 times more people were lifted out of poverty during Clinton's years than during Reagan's.

Further, Reagan followed Keynesian policies, spending more domestically (esp. military spending) lowering taxes, and having an expansionary fiscal policy. All which are tools of modern progressives for the most part.

A president's policies has more effect over how much people are working. Productivity per hour has more to do with long term things and structural polices, not what the current president is doing.

Clinton's boom was not really Clinton's boom. It was the internet boom. This was a good thing, but Clinton does not deserve credit.

Clinton's actions such as expanding the EITC helped the poor by a lot, as did other actions such as federal aid to education (in 1997 onwards), and his tax hikes and other early actions in 1993 lowered interest rates = an economic boom. Clinton gives other credit to the R&D tax credit, which he thinks (as do I) should be expanded.

Reagan's boom, on the other hand, has to do with employment growth. Reagan does deserve credit here.

Overall, Clinton's was better. Not to say Reagan's was bad, Reagan had a good economy as well, thanks to Keynesian economics, which are the tools of modern progressives.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:38:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.

Ok. What would of you done about the WMD in Iraq then? Before Desert Fox in 1997-8, which destroyed all of them.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:38:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.

Ok. What would of you done about the WMD in Iraq then? Before Desert Fox in 1997-8, which destroyed all of them.

I personally would have done nothing. But if was going to intervene, I bet I could think of a better way to do it than killing a bunch of children that had nothing to do with the WMDs.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:42:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I was*
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:14:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:41:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:38:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.

Ok. What would of you done about the WMD in Iraq then? Before Desert Fox in 1997-8, which destroyed all of them.

I personally would have done nothing. But if was going to intervene, I bet I could think of a better way to do it than killing a bunch of children that had nothing to do with the WMDs.

Sadly those were the casualties. So, I assume you are an isolationist.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:14:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:41:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:38:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.

Ok. What would of you done about the WMD in Iraq then? Before Desert Fox in 1997-8, which destroyed all of them.

I personally would have done nothing. But if was going to intervene, I bet I could think of a better way to do it than killing a bunch of children that had nothing to do with the WMDs.

This. Monopoly in the middle east of WMD's= BAD.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:33:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:14:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:41:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:38:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:35:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:33:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:28:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:13:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:11:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:07:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
None of those numbers support any conclusion about any of those presidents. There are too many variables not being controlled for.

Basically this. Although I think Clinton was a great president, though he was somewhat too moderate when it came to the death penalty and welfare reform.

And was a sociopath that (with George Bush Sr.) killed half a million children. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton wasn't responsible for this. "With the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1997, the crisis improved" is from the same source.

Yes, the amount of children the US killed per year decreased somewhat in 1997. That doesn't excuse the years before that, or the years after for that matter. The Clinton administration made the sanctions significantly worse than they could have been--even blocking children's vaccines until a public outcry forced them to stop. http://host.madison.com...

If you were President, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop this atrocity? You probably would, because you're not a sociopath. Clinton didn't, because he is one.

Ok. What would of you done about the WMD in Iraq then? Before Desert Fox in 1997-8, which destroyed all of them.

I personally would have done nothing. But if was going to intervene, I bet I could think of a better way to do it than killing a bunch of children that had nothing to do with the WMDs.

Sadly those were the casualties. So, I assume you are an isolationist.

Children's vaccines weren't really connected to WMDs, so no, they weren't the casualties of getting rid of WMDs. It's like saying "well those are the casualties of war" about the Holocaust--it doesn't apply since it was a separate program that had nothing to do with the war effort.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 11:22:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:01:53 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 5:04:00 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
BTW,

To me, this data supports the idea that Reagan's economic policies were the best.

BS

Clinton and Reagan had roughly the same economic growth rates. However, Clinton's growth came from productivity per hour and Reagan's came from people working more hours.

Sorry to burst the joy of thinking that Reagan's policies worked "amazingly", but 100 times more people were lifted out of poverty during Clinton's years than during Reagan's.

I'd like to see a source for this. But, the fact of the matter is that GDP per capita, the standard measure of economic growth, grew faster under Reagan than it did under Clinton. That is just a fact.


Further, Reagan followed Keynesian policies, spending more domestically (esp. military spending) lowering taxes, and having an expansionary fiscal policy. All which are tools of modern progressives for the most part.

Again, flatly untrue. In fact, as I showed in another thread, spending under Reagan actually grew very slowly. Once you take out interest spending, which certainly does not have an "expansionary effect", even according to keynesian theory, Reagan saw the slowest growth in spending of any modern president.

And, the whole idea that Reagan's economic growth was keynesian is a bit insane, as explained here:

"If the 1980s expansion had been a classic, demand-driven Keynesian recovery, nominal demand should have grownrapidly in the 1980s. However, as Figure 9 shows, over the course of the 1980s the rate of nominal demand growthfell.The Keynesian explanation of the economic recovery in the 1980s is also fundamentally inconsistent with the sharpfall in inflation throughout that decade. If the recovery had been driven by a hike in the demand for goods and servicesrather than by a supply-side effect of greater output, inflation would have risen rather than fallen. But it did fall. Thisis why the near-universal predictions by Reagan's opponents from 1979 to 1981 of higher inflation from tax cutsproved to be entirely misguided.Finally, if budget deficits are highly stimulative, the post-Reagan period of 1990-95 should have produced strongeconomic growth. The budget deficits of that period were very nearly of the same magnitude as the deficits of 1982-89(4.2 percent of GDP versus 3.9 percent of GDP); in the 1980s, however, we had rapid growth and in the 1990s wehave had anemic growth. The answer seems to be the supply-side effects of tax and regulatory reductions in the 1980sversus the tax hikes and reregulation in the 1990s."

http://www.cato.org...

The fact is that money growth slowed, federal spending slowed, and inflation slowed. This is all the opposite of what keynesians would suggest and the opposite of what they predicted occured, inflation fell and economic growth resumed.

It wasn't until AFTER the Reagan boom proved their ideas wrong that they tried to start taking credit for it.

The tax cuts under Reagan were permanent and across the board, opposite from the "timely, targeted, and temporary" tax cuts that keynesians suggest today.

Keynesians trying to take credit for the Reagan boom is kind of humorous.


A president's policies has more effect over how much people are working. Productivity per hour has more to do with long term things and structural polices, not what the current president is doing.

Clinton's boom was not really Clinton's boom. It was the internet boom. This was a good thing, but Clinton does not deserve credit.

Clinton's actions such as expanding the EITC helped the poor by a lot, as did other actions such as federal aid to education (in 1997 onwards), and his tax hikes and other early actions in 1993 lowered interest rates = an economic boom. Clinton gives other credit to the R&D tax credit, which he thinks (as do I) should be expanded.

Wait, I thought large deficits didn't have anything to do with interest rates. And, I thought tax cuts were good. You're not a very consistent keynesian...

Also, don't forget that Clinton had slow spending growth, free trade, welfare reform, and a capital gains tax cut that all helped the economy.

ANd, of course, the internet...


Reagan's boom, on the other hand, has to do with employment growth. Reagan does deserve credit here.

Overall, Clinton's was better. Not to say Reagan's was bad, Reagan had a good economy as well, thanks to Keynesian economics, which are the tools of modern progressives.

Um, no, Reagan's economy was better. And, he inherited a MUCH worse economy than did Clinton. And, keynesian policies were the reason the economy he inherited was so bad, it was a reversal of those that led to the boom
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 11:27:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reagan's policies were keynesian in nature. Keynesian economics is all about deficit spending during recessions which he did.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 11:28:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:45:40 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
It'd be interesting to see debt thrown into that mix. My impression is that Clinton'd do much better than Reagan or Bush.

http://www.craigsteiner.us...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross