Lori Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that? 48923[/snapback] Actually, I can. My mom got promoted at work, and we didn't eat cereal for dinner quite as often. You want my childhood, jerk? You're welcome to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that? 48923[/snapback] That's an amazingly stupid post. Like policies kick into effect in days or weeks with regard to the most complex economy in the world. You are much smarter than that. SHAMEFUL. FLIGHTSUIT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that? 48923[/snapback] Yes I can. Knowing how my mother busted her ass to barely feed us and that was with foodstamps and welfare, I decided not to incure additional debt. I joined the Marine Corps with Reagan as the CINC. It was the best thing I ever did. I already had good work ethics, I am naturally intelligent, and the Marines did the rest. Under Reagan and even Bush I, those that worked for their money got to keep more of it. More people were employed, and enjoyed a better quality of life. Sure there was the 2 years at the beginning of Reagan as carry over of failed social policies from the Carter and Ford eras. Plus the general lazy !@#$ing attitude of the Vietnam protesting drugdies. but those issues were overcome and people were rewarded for hardwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 That's an amazingly stupid post. Like policies kick into effect in days or weeks with regard to the most complex economy in the world. You are much smarter than that. SHAMEFUL. FLIGHTSUIT! 48950[/snapback] That's the point isn't it? Actually, of all of the comments so far, I agree mostly with chef's: presidents have less to do with overall economic growth than people give them credit or blame for. My original post with the data was an attempt to show that point. Can anyone remember any significant economic policy Carter enacted? Just as Clinton was the beneficiary of long term positive economic changes, Carter was in office at the start of long term negative economic changes (deindustrialization) and another OPEC embargo. The right wants to give credit to Reagan for an economy that was relatively average on the one hand, but they won't blame either Bushes for terrible economic performance on the other. They blame Carter for poor performance on the one hand, but won't give Clinton credit on the other. Which is it? Can a president make a significant impact on the economy or not? I would say that policies enacted by administrations have a greater impact on the distribution of income than income growth in general. Tomorrow I'll post some data to this effect. As far as remembering the past, I did just fine during Carter's term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Geez, I can't fight those kinds of arguments: memories of 6 and 8 year olds. how'd you do during Reagan's recession in 1981 and 82, when unemployment was over 10%? Can you remember that? 48923[/snapback] Regean's recession?? Care to explain to us Mr. Econ 101 how it is his, and his alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 That's the point isn't it? Actually, of all of the comments so far, I agree mostly with chef's: presidents have less to do with overall economic growth than people give them credit or blame for. My original post with the data was an attempt to show that point. Can anyone remember any significant economic policy Carter enacted? Just as Clinton was the beneficiary of long term positive economic changes, Carter was in office at the start of long term negative economic changes (deindustrialization) and another OPEC embargo. The right wants to give credit to Reagan for an economy that was relatively average on the one hand, but they won't blame either Bushes for terrible economic performance on the other. They blame Carter for poor performance on the one hand, but won't give Clinton credit on the other. Which is it? Can a president make a significant impact on the economy or not? I would say that policies enacted by administrations have a greater impact on the distribution of income than income growth in general. Tomorrow I'll post some data to this effect. As far as remembering the past, I did just fine during Carter's term. 48986[/snapback] Great so you agree with my comment regarding Presidents having little to do with the economic cycle however you have no trouble referring it to Reagan's recession. Boy, Kerry is truely the man for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Regean's recession?? Care to explain to us Mr. Econ 101 how it is his, and his alone? 48990[/snapback] Would it make you happier if I called it the recession of 1981/82 as a way to identify it? I certainly wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the Bush 1 recession or the Bush 2 recession.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Would it make you happier if I called it the recession of 1981/82 as a way to identify it? I certainly wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the Bush 1 recession or the Bush 2 recession.. 49001[/snapback] Hey listen, you're the one that said that the President had little effect on the economic cycle. So according to you that is the way is should be, they should be tied to the year they occurred not which President they came under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 That's the point isn't it? Actually, of all of the comments so far, I agree mostly with chef's: presidents have less to do with overall economic growth than people give them credit or blame for. My original post with the data was an attempt to show that point. Can anyone remember any significant economic policy Carter enacted? Just as Clinton was the beneficiary of long term positive economic changes, Carter was in office at the start of long term negative economic changes (deindustrialization) and another OPEC embargo. The right wants to give credit to Reagan for an economy that was relatively average on the one hand, but they won't blame either Bushes for terrible economic performance on the other. They blame Carter for poor performance on the one hand, but won't give Clinton credit on the other. Which is it? Can a president make a significant impact on the economy or not? I would say that policies enacted by administrations have a greater impact on the distribution of income than income growth in general. Tomorrow I'll post some data to this effect. As far as remembering the past, I did just fine during Carter's term. 48986[/snapback] Of course a mark of a great Presidency in dealing with the economy is trying to be more than a speed bump in the cycle. For that reason Carter is treated by history as the non-entity that he was, while Reagan will go down as a major reformer. The Reagan legacy is not so much what he accomplished in his 8 years, but the platform that he built. The Clinton boom years owe a lot to Reaganomics, and Clinton should be commended for recognizing the right way to go. Bush 41 was caught in the hangover of the Reagan euphoria, but didn't have the fortitude to deal with the people. I can't figure out Bush 43's economic policy, and he should be thanking his lucky star that the Dems have settled on Kerry as the candidate. Of course a mark of a great Presidency in dealing with the economy is trying to be more than a speed bump in the cycle. For that reason Carter is treated by history as the non-entity that he was, while Reagan will go down as a major reformer. The Reagan legacy is not so much what he accomplished in his 8 years, but the platform that he built. The Clinton boom years owe a lot to Reaganomics, and Clinton should be commended for recognizing the right way to go. Bush 41 was caught in the hangover of the Reagan euphoria, but didn't have the fortitude to deal with the people. I can't figure out Bush 43's economic policy, and he should be thanking his lucky star that the Dems have settled on Kerry as the candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Of course a mark of a great Presidency in dealing with the economy is trying to be more than a speed bump in the cycle. For that reason Carter is treated by history as the non-entity that he was, while Reagan will go down as a major reformer. The Reagan legacy is not so much what he accomplished in his 8 years, but the platform that he built. The Clinton boom years owe a lot to Reaganomics, and Clinton should be commended for recognizing the right way to go. Bush 41 was caught in the hangover of the Reagan euphoria, but didn't have the fortitude to deal with the people. I can't figure out Bush 43's economic policy, and he should be thanking his lucky star that the Dems have settled on Kerry as the candidate. Of course a mark of a great Presidency in dealing with the economy is trying to be more than a speed bump in the cycle. For that reason Carter is treated by history as the non-entity that he was, while Reagan will go down as a major reformer. The Reagan legacy is not so much what he accomplished in his 8 years, but the platform that he built. The Clinton boom years owe a lot to Reaganomics, and Clinton should be commended for recognizing the right way to go. Bush 41 was caught in the hangover of the Reagan euphoria, but didn't have the fortitude to deal with the people. I can't figure out Bush 43's economic policy, and he should be thanking his lucky star that the Dems have settled on Kerry as the candidate. 49017[/snapback] Wow, did anyone else get major deja vu reading that post? Sorry, couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Wow, did anyone else get major deja vu reading that post? Sorry, couldn't resist. 49018[/snapback] Time to get a new laptop (or wash my fingers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Time to get a new laptop (or wash my fingers) 49041[/snapback] I'd start with washing your fingers. Remind me never to borrow your laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Jimmy Carter=stagflation. The man is so bad, he actually makes Warren Harding look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts