Interesting Facts about Ronald Reagan

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CJ7

hahahaha

good thing JDSL isnt a history teacher

Ronnie had 10 consecutive months of over 10% unemployment ratings and it took him 20 months to get there from the day he took office .... I have the emperical data from the BLS to prove it.

when bush took office unemployment was 4.2% .. when he left it was 7.8%

as you say Obie stepped in at 7.8% and today its 8.2% ? (until the numbers come out next week)

assuming your arent a math theacher too, have someone do the math for you.

evenin' teach.

Unemployment averaged 5.3% for the eight years of George W. Bush's administration. Not bad, when you consider that full employment is considered to be 5.0%.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here is the problem with Libtards; they use people that they disagree with to try to make their points. In this case the statement is Ayn Rand didn't like Ronald Reagan. The why is the important part. It was not about politics or policy. Rand died a little over a year after Reagan became president so she never saw how things turned out. Rand disagreed with Reagan over religion. Rand was an atheist and didn't like the "Moral Majority" hangers on in the GOP. So if you're trying to talk about philosophy then you're barking up the wrong tree or you never understood.

So Ayn Rand was an atheist and according to the libtards we conservatives should run away from her. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Monroe owned slaves so according to libtard philosophy everything that they ever did must be dismissed. Fortunately conservatives don't pay much attention to libtards. They really don't have a similar problem as they accept anything that people do as okay with them. Note Teddy Kennedy, Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton, Blago, Rostenkowski, and a few other convicted felons. They accept them warts and all.

Conservatives can accept and separate someone's religious belief's from what they wrote about. Notice I said separate and not ignore. Margaret Sanger was a hard core racist but she is embraced by liberals everywhere because it helps them divide men and women politically. Most of the early democratic presidents were slave holders but the typical libtard doesn't know or care.

So since I know that WE, WTF, CJ, Louise, and Stevie really don't care what Ayn Rand really stood for we can safely ignore their opinions.

When RR came into office the unemployment rate was 7.5% which was up 1.6% from what is was two years earlier so like Obama would say, RR inherited a upward trending unemployment rate. Unemployment topped out at 10.2% in November of 1982 and stayed there for two months (Nov, Dec) and started to drop. When RR left office in January of 1989 the unemployment rate was 5.4% or lower than when he came into office. Compare that to Obama. After all he is the one running for reelection and not Reagan.
When BHO came into office the unemployment rate was 7.8 % and trending upwards. Two years earlier the unemployment rate was 4.5%. So unemployment was rising faster when Obama came into office but stopped rising at 10% in October of 2009. So unemployment was trending faster under Obama but peaked quicker than under RR. RR pushed unemployment down faster than Obama has and eventually pushed it lower than when he took office. The current trend under Obama suggests that even if he continued for four more years he will still not get unemployment down to when he took office if we take into account what is going to happen in January, 2013 when the tax cuts expire and Obamacare taxes kick in.

The average annual unemployment rate was 9.7 in 1982 and 9.6 in 1983.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Unemployment averaged 5.3% for the eight years of George W. Bush's administration. Not bad, when you consider that full employment is considered to be 5.0%.

And averaged 4.7 during Clinton's 8 years.

[JD Barleycorn]

CJ, you are such a guppy. Go back and read the assignment. I wrote "Unemployment topped out at 10.2% in November of 1982 and stayed there for two months (Nov, Dec) and started to drop." and that is completely true. It was at 10.2% for two months and dropped. I NEVER said that it was not over 10% for any amount of time. I wrote that it was at a high for two months. You don't really know what the truth is do you? Is it dyslexia or some learning disability? For everyone else, read it yourself. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet


FYI, average unemployment in 1982 was 9.7% but what does that have to do with the trend? I mentioned trend and you mentioned tomato. When trying to predict the future you have the trend and have to wait for the numbers. The trend for both RR and Obama was very steep but the trend downwards was much faster for RR. Obama fails. Since Bill Clinton was brought into this, the trend of falling unemployment started under George H W Bush and continued pretty uniformly until 1996 until it slowed slightly. That recovery belonged to Bush and not Clinton.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

CJ, you are such a guppy. Go back and read the assignment. I wrote "Unemployment topped out at 10.2% in November of 1982 and stayed there for two months (Nov, Dec) and started to drop." and that is completely true. It was at 10.2% for two months and dropped. I NEVER said that it was not over 10% for any amount of time. I wrote that it was at a high for two months. You don't really know what the truth is do you? Is it dyslexia or some learning disability? For everyone else, read it yourself. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet


FYI, average unemployment in 1982 was 9.7% but what does that have to do with the trend? I mentioned trend and you mentioned tomato. When trying to predict the future you have the trend and have to wait for the numbers. The trend for both RR and Obama was very steep but the trend downwards was much faster for RR. Obama fails. Since Bill Clinton was brought into this, the trend of falling unemployment started under George H W Bush and continued pretty uniformly until 1996 until it slowed slightly. That recovery belonged to Bush and not Clinton.

1982

Sept .. 10.1
Oct .. 10.4
Nov ... 10.8
Dec .. 10.8

1983

Jan 10.4
Feb 10.4
Mar .. 10.3
Apr .. 10.2
May .. 10.1
June ... 10.1

study up guppy

[WTF]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

When you have Republicans like Rep. Duncan Hunter calling Reagan "a former liberal ... who would never be elected today," or Mike Huckabbee noting the obvious that "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party," you know something is wrong with today's GOP

.

Maybe they would treat Ronnie boy like they do Paul Ryan.

Ronnie could vote to both the auto and Bank bailouts. He could vote for a huge government expansion in Medicare, unfunded btw. He could then come up with a plan to save Medicare, a program true Conseratives nevered liked and they then would praise him as a true Conserative!

Reagan benifited from low oil prices. Maybe Obama should sell weapons to Iran. Obama should give amensty to all our illegals like reagan and then see if our Tea Nuts praise him!

What this country needed was another Paul Volker. High interest rates from 2009/2010 so people could pay off their debt with inflated money and then lower them and we could start this whole cycle over again. That is WTF truely stimulated the economy. High savings , nobody buys hardly anything for three years , then boom, lower rates and let pent up demand do the rest. That was wtf Reagan lucked into. He can thank Jimmy Carter for that. The Fed really runs this country and they are the ones doing the piss poor job. Why, Crony Capitalism. Mitt Romney will do nothing to change that. I doubt Obama will either if he gets re elected.

[boxcardummie]

So siding with companies in the Hollywood union riots, siding with the board at Berkeley college protests, breaking the flight controllers union, Lowering taxes to a 50% top tax rate, strong arming the soviet union, lowering the national debt by 1 trillion while in office (he added 3 trillion and then knocked 4 trillion off by the time he left), giving amnesty for the promise of tightening the borders with Mexico (dur i wonder if that happened), and not flip flopping his position every campaign cycle is what OBAMA would do?

[WTF]

If you think Ronnie lowered the national debt , you are beyond help! Is that now how the GOP Zhas spun it?

[waverunner234]

reagan chose alan greenspan, the father of all evel, the big deregulator and the probable cause of the 2008 finacial collapse.

really good job reagan

[JD Barleycorn]

You know CJ its not too late. I can recommend a good comphrehension building program.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You know CJ its not too late. I can recommend a good comphrehension building program.

comprehend this and get back to us ..

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000


adjust the years in the dropdown box for Reagans terms and see for yourself.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Ronnie had 10 consecutive months of over 10% unemployment ratings and it took him 20 months to get there from the day he took office .... I have the emperical data from the BLS to prove it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying good or bad?

Reagan got unemployment down significantly and 20 months is not a long time in terms of economics and shifting an entire economy. RR got the unemployment rate down a couple of points below Carter AND simultaneously dropped inflation by a DOZEN points.

Awesome accomplishments that are difficult to argue with. Are you really going to quibble that 20 months was too long? It would be a better argument to point to increased deficits, not the time it took to turn the economy around.

Obama has had over 32 months and unemployment is still significantly higher than when he came into office and he has NOT had to fight inflation.

I'm not trying to criticize Obama, I'm just giving you comparative measurements.

Overall, I think more of the problem we are having now can be laid at the feet of Bush, rather than Obama. But a BIG part of our problems cannot be laid at the feet of either. There are world wide systemic changes going on and we are NOT in control of the world wide economy, despite what some believe. The state of the economy in China has huge impacts on our economy.

I think Obama has the economy going in the right direction, but we are moving very slowly. And we are on the brink of dropping back into another recession.

Well paying jobs are not recovering at all. According to a recent chart I saw, we have actually gained back more low paying jobs than we lost during recession. But middle income and high income jobs are still below pre-recession levels. So while we now have more $35,000 jobs than before, we have less $75K and $200K jobs.

We are essentially replacing higher paying jobs with lower paying jobs as people who used to make good money are now forced to take whatever they can get.

And the current employment statistics are artificially low. Many people have simply given up looking for work and are staying at home while their spouses work. But these people are no longer counted among the unemployed. The REAL unemployment rate is closer to 10% if not actually over it.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

reagan chose alan greenspan, the father of all evel, the big deregulator and the probable cause of the 2008 finacial collapse.

really good job reagan

Really? Is that an actual criticism?

Regan left office in 1988. In the intervening 20 years, no one else had the chance to replace him? Not even Bill Clinton?

The concept of proximity is lost on you, isn't it?

Maybe we should blame Greenspan's parents for having him in the first place? Really good birth control, folks!

Greenspan presided over the booming dotcom economy of the 1990s, which made everyone in sight, Democrats and Clinton included, think he could do no wrong. The bank deregulations came about in the late 1990s when everyone wanted to cash in on the phenomenal growth in the stock market. That was long after Reagan was out of office. Don't blame him for that.

There is a big difference between advocating the deregulation of airlines and trucking (which Reagan did) and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton did in 1999).

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying good or bad?

Reagan got unemployment down significantly and 20 months is not a long time in terms of economics and shifting an entire economy. RR got the unemployment rate down a couple of points below Carter AND simultaneously dropped inflation by a DOZEN points.

Awesome accomplishments that are difficult to argue with. Are you really going to quibble that 20 months was too long? It would be a better argument to point to increased deficits, not the time it took to turn the economy around.

Obama has had over 32 months and unemployment is still significantly higher than when he came into office and he has NOT had to fight inflation.

I'm not trying to criticize Obama, I'm just giving you comparative measurements.

Overall, I think more of the problem we are having now can be laid at the feet of Bush, rather than Obama. But a BIG part of our problems cannot be laid at the feet of either. There are world wide systemic changes going on and we are NOT in control of the world wide economy, despite what some believe. The state of the economy in China has huge impacts on our economy.

I think Obama has the economy going in the right direction, but we are moving very slowly. And we are on the brink of dropping back into another recession.

Well paying jobs are not recovering at all. According to a recent chart I saw, we have actually gained back more low paying jobs than we lost during recession. But middle income and high income jobs are still below pre-recession levels. So while we now have more $35,000 jobs than before, we have less $75K and $200K jobs.

We are essentially replacing higher paying jobs with lower paying jobs as people who used to make good money are now forced to take whatever they can get.

And the current employment statistics are artificially low. Many people have simply given up looking for work and are staying at home while their spouses work. But these people are no longer counted among the unemployed. The REAL unemployment rate is closer to 10% if not actually over it.

not quibbling in the least, the topic was interesting facts about Reagan. Given the fact several here see the current 8.3% unemployment rate as the certain death of this country I simply offered the facts.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I can't possibly address all of the points above. I have a life.


By way of example:

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level.

Your recitation of the facts clearly attempts to imply that the tax cut caused unemployment to rise. It didn't. Cutting taxes may cause the deficit to increase, but it is not going to increase unemployment. Leaving taxpayers with more money causes them to invest and spend more, which tends to lower unemployment. If the increased economic activity (i.e., broader bases) does not result in enough new tax revenues to cover the revenue lost by the cut in tax rates, the deficit goes up, not unemployment.

You must not have paid attention when the Bush tax cuts didn't create even half as many jobs as the economy when we had the Clinton era tax rate. Bush also "charged" two major wars without finding any revenue to fund them.