The economic stats are reflective of what is going on in there market. Using them to make investments and make money is the epitome of capitalism. Not to mention if you just bury your head in the sand and scream “LIES” in the face of mountains of data you would have missed out on massive returns. That’s just foolish.
You make persuasive arguments, and they probably work for some people who are relatively well off. (More on that in a moment.)
However... I would posit that Reagan and his administration were for the most part reasonably honest and competent people. Obama and his administration are clearly not honest or competent (outside of political competence that I will concede!) Do you dispute this? Do you dispute that most gov't employees have a strong bias (at the least) in favor of the present Administration and its policies?
My above observation does not "prove" that the numbers you post are dishonest, but then how do you propose to "prove" that they are honest? It seems to me that if the Administration are known liars on many subjects, the burden of proof is on them at all times.
Furthermore, any average person knows from their own experience that, at least for middle income people, the CPI, which at one time seemed to at least be "in the ballpark" when it came to reflecting typical family expenses, is now either faulty or dishonest. I track both my family and business expenses carefully, and have been doing so for almost 4 decades. When it it comes to actual "cost-of-living", what's going on, and the modern CPI are two different things. Business expenses are worse, not even counting various insurances, taxes, and what not. Again, I am talking "mid-to-low-end" here: Maybe things are different for those with incomes over, oh, I don't know - maybe >$100k / year?
There's even an additional factor: The quality of most consumer items, possibly excluding vehicles, has taken a big hit over the years. Average price items just don't hold up the way they once did. This can be a considerable drain on a budget. Having to buy "widget w" 3 times as often, or buy a "high end version", may look like positive economic activity, but it is NOT a positive to me.
Now, "the market" and many business & investment decisions do follow the published stats. The king may have no clothes, but one is likely financially better off at least in the short run by acting on and perhaps within the king's reality. (This reminds me of the many countries described in the CIA factbook as having economies distorted and weak due to excessive gov't interference and incompetence: There are still SOME people in those countries well able to take advantage of that environment.)
Essentially, the wealthy can work within almost any system that does not directly and heavily attack them, and benefit from it. Established wealthy probably benefit MORE from a corrupt system than an honest system, as they can most effectively play the system, and at the same time competition from below is reduced. They need not even be corrupt themselves, though it usually helps. Whether or not said system benefits the average person in an optimal manner, or whether it is long-term stable, is a completely different matter.
In my own case, there might be a conflict in my own mind, between how I could get in on those "massive returns", and what I believe is best for the country in the long run. However, that has become irrelevant. Expanding socialism (or worse) has effectively eaten up any "extra" I might have left to invest. I suspect a great many people are in my shoes. (In my case, my old IRA still rolls along, but I cannot afford to contribute further to it: Barring some major change, I will work until I am dead, if I expect to stay afloat without becoming a suckling piglet at the gov't teat.)
Please note that none of the above is intended as an attack on wealth or established wealth. I'd just like to see a more honest system with less gov't gooing it up.