tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5946767764851129880..comments2024-03-29T06:09:09.845-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Glenn Kessler debunks Reagan’s bogus old tale!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78238592861286983312012-12-18T07:22:20.972-05:002012-12-18T07:22:20.972-05:00All "marvelous" growth is due to Preside...All "marvelous" growth is due to Presidential policies, if I like the policies (and if I'm allowed to ignore the policies I didn't agree with, or that the President couldn't control, and as long as I can pick a favorable baseline)!<br /><br />What?<br /><br />You say that's called being full of sh!t?<br /><br />Maybe so, maybe so...The Real David in Californianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14365582820135468352012-12-18T07:14:13.457-05:002012-12-18T07:14:13.457-05:00"So you were playing us right from the start?..."So you were playing us right from the start?"<br /><br />...As always.<br /><br />Real growth was flat, even though population was up 6% and GDP was up 69%.<br /><br />DavidinCA can *never* be trusted. Call it the Golden State rule of this blog comments section.<br /><br />Also, he's (of course) wrong that NDDS should decline when GDP rises: Most of NDDS is NOT composed of poverty-related expenses. <br /><br />It has tracked GDP fairly closely for the last 50 years, staying in a range of 2.5%-3.5% of GDP. There was a brief bump to 4.5% GDP in the late '70's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7429900192880251912012-12-18T01:33:18.923-05:002012-12-18T01:33:18.923-05:00The Reagan economic "miracle" can be sou...The Reagan economic "miracle" can be sourced to his con of the American people into accepting wage sacrifices that resulted in both the husband and wife working outside the home to make slightly more in income then when the wages for the head of household permitted a spouse to remain at home to raise children. Trickle on economics was so bad that some Americans learned to survive by starting their own businesses. The increase in small businesses under Reagan was due to the desperation of people who could not find work that paid enough to raise a family. To disguise the negative effect on worker's wages, that Reagan's policies caused, lending regulations were eased that made credit available to a wider demographic and turned America into a nation of debtors.gcwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07990785263482839943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1298907809825114092012-12-18T01:32:32.330-05:002012-12-18T01:32:32.330-05:00They're in nominal dollars.
I see. So you wer...<i>They're in nominal dollars.</i><br /><br />I see. So you were playing us right from the start?Quaker in a Basementnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65575679379902968852012-12-18T01:07:58.453-05:002012-12-18T01:07:58.453-05:00How bad was Reagan? Shortly after Reagan was elect...How bad was Reagan? Shortly after Reagan was elected a lady friend wore black everyday in mourning for America. At the time I wasn't sure, but upon reflection her timing was about right.gcwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07990785263482839943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-36669844267848679612012-12-18T01:07:36.731-05:002012-12-18T01:07:36.731-05:00How bad was Reagan? Shortly after Reagan was elect...How bad was Reagan? Shortly after Reagan was elected a lady friend wore black everyday in mourning for America. At the time I wasn't sure, but upon reflection her timing was about right.gcwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07990785263482839943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60923534794477657602012-12-17T21:23:47.232-05:002012-12-17T21:23:47.232-05:00"Reagan's policies" -- you mean like..."Reagan's policies" -- you mean like the raising of taxes? Which of "Reagan's policies" led to this "marvelous economic growth" of which you speak? In your answer -- and I know an intelligent, fact-informed answer that isn't boiler plate from Heritage will be forthcoming -- please make sure to include the role that Paul Volcker and the Fed played, or didn't play, in the whole thing.<br /><br />Thanks in advance, and looking forward to seeing more of your informed opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77918073430763808002012-12-17T20:59:22.563-05:002012-12-17T20:59:22.563-05:00They're in nominal dollars. Inflation from 19...They're in nominal dollars. Inflation from 1982 to 1889 was about 29%, so adjusting for inflation the NDDS declined slightly. It should decline during a period of growing prosperity, because expenses related to poverty and people being out of work should decline. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-30732887818469569652012-12-17T19:02:35.646-05:002012-12-17T19:02:35.646-05:00David in Cal -- Are those NDDS spending numbers in...David in Cal -- Are those NDDS spending numbers in constant dollars?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37266639323751782622012-12-17T14:17:13.415-05:002012-12-17T14:17:13.415-05:00Sorry, I mistakenly used 3.4% insteat of 3.2%. Th...Sorry, I mistakenly used 3.4% insteat of 3.2%. The actual 1989 NDDS was $186 billion. Compared with $149 billion in 1982, that's an increase of 25%.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49733734336002215302012-12-17T14:13:12.503-05:002012-12-17T14:13:12.503-05:00Kessler wrote: In fact, historical budget data sho...Kessler wrote: <i>In fact, historical budget data show that Congress did reduce spending. From 1982 to 1983, nondefense discretionary spending fell from 4.3 percent to 4.2 percent of the overall economy (gross domestic product) — and then kept falling until it reached 3.4 percent of GDP in 1989.</i> <br /><br />His “proof” for this claim is not based on the actual spending, but on the ratio of spending to GDP. By plugging in the <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history" rel="nofollow">GDP</a>, we can calculate the actual dollars of Non-Defense Discretionary Spending (NDDS). In fact, from 1982 to 1989, Actual NDDS grew by 18%.<br /><br /><br />YEAR……..GDP……………..NDDS %................NDDS $<br />1982 …$3253 billion……….4.3%..................$149 billion<br />1989…. $5482 billion….….3.2%...................$175 billion<br /><br />What actually drives Kessler’s assertion is the marvelous economic growth that was encouraged by Reagan’s policies. I wish Obama and the Dems could do half as well.<br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29394396173619061572012-12-17T12:55:05.318-05:002012-12-17T12:55:05.318-05:00McCain was a high profile critic of Susan Rice and...McCain was a high profile critic of Susan Rice and her September interviews, but he was not alone. The press also covered the unsuccessful attempts by Rice to appeal to Ayotte and Collins. If the press kept repeating the bogus tale, it did have more sources than McCain. Were there any elected GOP leaders in favor of Rice's nomination?<br /><br />And overall the press coverage for Susan Rice over the past 3 months has been sympathetic... for example, nobody mocked her ridiculous assertion that "The position of Secretary of State should never be politicized." Given that Rice is no doubt aware of the political background of the current Secretary of State, it should have been taken as a joke. But it was not. She continues to serve with the approval of all serious people in the press. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com