Reagan: It's time to strike back

DodgeGlobe.com ^ | January 30, 2004 | By Michael Reagan

[Pitchfork]

I love how you folks can argue two opposite ideas simultaneously

a) the economic growth of the Clinton era was a product of a lag effect (of presumeably 4-6 years)

b) the positive growth of the current economy is a result of the very recent Bush stimulus

So which is it folks? Macroeconomic trends have roots that go back years or is it subject to more immediate policy? I await your brilliance

BTW here are some FACTs from the US bureau of statistics

Figure is change in annual GDP in chained 2000 dollars.

1980 -0.2
1981 2.5
1982 -1.9
1983 4.5
1984 7.2
1985 4.1
1986 3.5
1987 3.4
1988 4.1
1989 3.5
1990 1.9
1991 -0.2
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
2001 0.5
2002 2.2
2003 3.1

Interesting stuff!

[nopardons]

Which you don't understand at all!

[11th_VA]

I hope you're right - but we could shore use some cover fire about right now ... BTW, Welcome to FR !

[Pitchfork]

The ecomomy is not 'tied directly to the federal budget' but to think that fiscal policy is irrelevant is folly. When the goverment runs a deficit it competes with the private sector for investment dollars because it has to borrow money to pay its bills. Fortunately the US economy isn't a closed system, so capital can flow in to fill both needs in most cases. Unfortunately the largest current buyers of US securities are the Chinese. I'll leave you to consider the impact of that fact.

[nopardons]

Are you that far gone ? There was a HUGED and constantly growing deficit under Reagan during the BOOM years of the'80s !

You're using a bulldozer to dig that hole now; I guess the shovel wasn't fast enough.

[Pitchfork]

Sure, I agree. You can sure fire up the economy with deficit spending. As Micheal Deaver said at the time "We're all Keynsians now". Our economy seems to have responded positively to similar stimulus now. Let's not pretend however that Bush's economic policy is in any way a 'let's shrink government and get it out of the way of the economy' approach! The huge deficit we're running is pumping capital into the economy like a firehose.
There is a price to pay for deficit spending however. We experienced it after the Reagan boom busted in the 90's. I suspect we'll see a hot economy by summer with substantial job growth.

[nopardons]

Booms come and go; but, the one that Reagan's tax cuts engendered lasted until MARCH OF 2000,with a few mild dips. The market NREVER just goes straight up, nor just straight down.

President Bush's tax cits ( two of them ) is what's helping the economy and the markets.

Back to your shovel, I see. :-)

[CyberAnt]

Your 401K was in better shape then because the Enrons, Global Crossings, etc. CORRUPTION had not been exposed.

However, my funds (with Oppenheimer) have returned to the amounts I had before the bottom fell out.

[CyberAnt]

"pop-up ads"

How tacky is that! Besides, 85% of the internet is already conservative.

[MJY1288]

Anybody who thinks raising taxes is the way to cure the deficit, can be easily compared to the Physicians of the 1800's who believed the only way to cure Yellow Fever was to drain all the blood out of the patient :-)

[Tamzee]

Awww, heck, he won't listen.

Don't worry, though, he'll realize what you and all the others were trying to explain to him.... when he's 80... and can't afford toenail clippers because he invested with an eye toward the next stellar Dem economy ;-)

[Pitchfork]

Wow bold face. I really am working you up!
Drop by the burea of statistics some time and check this out.
Average US annual GDP growth rate (chained 2000 dollars) since 1947 for Democratic Presidents: 4.2%
Average US annual GDP growth rate (chained 2000 dollars) since 1947 for Republican Presidents: 2.8%
Of course a lot of this came before the Great Society programs. But it makes for entertaining fodder.

You never did address my point as to why some policies have lagged effect and others immediate ones on the economy.

[nopardons]

No kidding. LOL

[CyberAnt]

"amnesia"

I think you're the one with amnesia. This "bubble" was supported by CORRUPTION! It was not a true expansion at all. So what you're saying is you would rather have all the corruption back versus a true growing economy ..??

[gatorbait]

We experienced it after the Reagan boom busted in the 90's
<p. All 6 or 7 months of it, though you'd not know listening to the lamestream press.

[america-rules]

"Frankly my 401K was better in better shape during the Clinton administration."

Bull$hit unless you got out before Clintons last 18 months and with 401K's you don't "get out" !

The stock market crashed right after Clinton's DOJ went after Microsoft and was down 50% when he left office. It's only gone back up since Bush took office so your statement is bull$hit !

[nopardons]

It won't take that long, if he invests the way he posts. LOL

Some people do NOT belong in the market and he's one of them.

[xzins]

Up to this point, the Pres. has not had to respond. His approval ratings remain high, and that indicates that most folks (except democrats) are not paying attention to the tripe coming out of demonRat land.

When Pres. Bush's numbers dip under 50% approval, imho, then the WH should respond. Until then they should avoid spending their money until they need it.

On one point in that last post we definitely agree: what's with the NEArts crap?