disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You certainly don't understand cost of living at all including low taxes so you continue to ignore reality. I posted bls data, you haven't refuted it. You posted 2009 to the present data ignoring the Obama stimulus program for shovel ready jobs. You promote the California entitlement mentality which makes Obama a hero in your world. Debt, low job creation, slow economic growth have no place in your world. Stick to California as that is exactly what you deserve
By the way, keep ignoring the minimum wage jobs created in California. I believe that 1.6 million minimum wage jobs in California exceed the 500,000 in TX but could be wrong. I don't use liberal math
Secular stagnation has little to do with the executive, much less one who came into office 9 years after it began to take hold.
That's cool.
I don't look at variables in a vacuum. If debt/GDP > 100% and the economy continued to shrink, you would have a point. But it is not shrinking and neither is the labor force.
No it isn't shrinking but it is stagnating and not growing in relationship to the population nor is job creation. The labor force grew over 10 million during the Bush term and 2 million under Obama. That is stagnation promoted by liberalism.
And instead of facing the fact that your "I voted for JFK" does not negate your Southern Conservative ideology, you shift to a worn out meme about the Bush Recession and GLOBAL economic stagnation as a result. We know what the neoliberal cuts will do, just look at nearly any other OECD growth rate.
Again....you can't accept the truth so you distort. Sorry Charlie....but Texas is tied with Mississippi for having the highest proportion of its citizens working for minimum wage. Must make you real proud!!
I can play this game...
No, some that never progress and get stuck in the conservative phase like to think that of others because it excuses their own lack of growth.
See that?
The point was, you assumed con had been liberal, he never was liberal.
To add, if "progress" is having a lower IQ, being more fearful, tending towards higher rates of prejudice, more prone to authoritarianism, well that is something I do not want to grow towards.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I never ignore real data, and I don't keep trying to pass off some ever changing story about my past ideology. You do. Today it's "I was always a conservative", but 3 years ago it was:Look, you and I are never going to agree. I will put my resume up against yours any day of the week but that is irrelevant. You are a liberal and refuse to acknowledge you are part of the problem not part of the solution. I see no further reason to continue posting the same data and information over and over again only to be ignored.
No, actually I didn't, I was a liberal back then ....
If the goal was for the creation of larger numbers of higher paying WAGE employment........why do you insist on going in circles? I'm not arguing for greater concentrations of wealth in fewer hands, you are, by your own admission. Again, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting yourself. You don't lament the large numbers of low wage jobs, you want it by arguing for wealthier owners.
Further, the poor cannot create jobs, since they are capital poor....durr.
First it was "progressing" (LOL!!) toward conservatism, now it is "adulthood=conservatism" while you childishly try to put words in my mouth (irony!). Growth is learning to accept difference, to live with it, not to close it off, to pull away from, to become more dogmatic and traditional.Wow, sounds like I really hit the nail on the head with you and you're throwing everything at it. What's next, "Nah, Nah, can't hear you"?
Don't worry, you've got company, not everyone progress to adulthood.
Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars and took GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion.
You don't get "more" rich people with more SB employment, you get more low wage employment.No I said I want MORE rich people. More means more. More doesnt mean fewer. Dur.
Um, your anecdotal "friend" did not go to bed poor and wake up the next day "rich" without some level of capitalization in between. And I REALLY hope you are not going to go off on some distraction from your original point (which you keep getting further and further from) with an argument about upward mobility.And as for your "Poor cannot create jobs" argument...sorry but that is just plain false. One of my best friends went from being poor to owning a company that continues to expand every year....she profits over $300k a year. In the not-so-distant future she will be profiting over a million a year. I guess you should talk to the people she employs if they have jobs or not.
He has no idea what he was, his story is ever changing. People might become more careful economically as they age (fear of losing wealth), but socially, folks who become more fearful socially are not "progressing". they are in fact regressing.No, you obviously can't play this game, at least not very well. It is accepted fact that humans in general go from liberal to conservative as they mature. Not the other way around.
So yes, it is more likely that as a young man Conservative was far more liberal.
GDP (in nominal dollars) was $2.8 trillion in 1980. Reagan became president in Jan 1981. In that year, it was $3.2 trillion.
In 1989, it was $5.6 trillion. Bush41 became president in January of that year.
The Reagan numbers go from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.25 trillion in 1988. So not "from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion," but rather from 3.2 to 5.25. Funny how ya got that wrong.
Unlike every macroeconomist in the world, you think inflation should be ignored. Nevertheless, I think it should be accounted for. When you look at real per capita GDP growth, Reagan's economy grew at 2.6% annually, while Obama's has grown at 2.1%.
The growth under Reagan resulted in large part from the trillions of (inflation-adjusted) dollars that were contained in federal deficits. Now Obama has had large deficits as well. But most of that money came from wars he didn't start and big tax cuts for the wealthy that he opposes. Moreover, yer not gonna get the same recovery form a financial crisis that you would from a business cycle recession.
The numbers just aren't there to validate yer claim that the Reagan economy was stronger than the one we've had under Obama.
>>You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?
Federal expenditures in FY2014 were $3.5 trillion. Spending has fallen under Obama. The FY2009 budget was almost all Bush's doing. The spending that Obama added was required to avoid a complete collapse of the economy. We'll see what the total for FY2015 ends up being. I know what you want cut — all those handouts to the black trash that are rioting in our streets.
>>BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish
How's that?
QUOTE=Conservative;1064628783]There you go again unable to figure out what nominal even means and the period covered, the 2.8 trillion was the economy at the end of 1980. The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion. those are the numbers that mattered because both revenue and expenses were in those year values.
Conservative;1064628857]
Of course I understand what are the components of a percentage calculation...hurr durr....and to be accurate it would be "effect"'. And I can tell you generally that the St Ronnie stimulus consisted of low multiplier "defense" spending.
Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? - The Washington Post
Um, he did not "double GDP", and his GDP gains were built on tripling the debt through low multiplier "defense" spending...not that I expect you to understand a multiplier in macro use.How you coming on finding that spending in the Reagan stimulus? Wonder what the public would think if Obama did spend to create a peace dividend, 17 million jobs, and doubling of GDP? Hmmm, good question
Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars
figure out … the period covered
$1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Reagan came along and brought such programs to life with an infusion of money. Defense spending hit a peak of $456.5 billion in 1987 (in projected 2005 dollars), compared with $325.1 billion in 1980 and $339.6 million in 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Most of the increase was for procurement and research and development programs. The procurement budget leapt to $147.3 billion from $71.2 billion in 1980.
Reagan's Defense Buildup Bridged Military Eras (washingtonpost.com)
Um, he did not "double GDP", and his GDP gains were built on tripling the debt through low multiplier "defense" spending...not that I expect you to understand a multiplier in macro use.
Wait, you are arguing that the massive increase in military spending by St Raygun was not a stimulative measure?Yep, and not one dime of that money was in the stimulus. How are you coming finding the data? Wonder if the public would accept that spending to create another peace dividend like it did then? Are we safer today than we were with Reagan in the WH?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?