On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan
corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late
70's up to the mid 80's.

The Volcker Recesssion is what cured inflation. Volcker was a Carter
appointment.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:23:54 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception. Reagan
corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that accompanied the late
70's up to the mid 80's.

The Volcker Recesssion is what cured inflation. Volcker was a Carter
appointment.

Well yea, a recession usually does curb inflation. But that's not
necessarily a good thing economically. It could be argued though that
recession and inflation are simply the result of the pendulum swinging
the other way. Such is the nature of a free market economy. Reagan
ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down
economics".

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
... Reagan
ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down
economics".


You really do live in a fantasy world.

Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true
way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits.

Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo"
economics never worked.

Them's the facts.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does
tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.


http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?


Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.


Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.

Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president
taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession
on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy.



Dave

P.Fritz wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does
tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.



http://zfacts.com/p/480.html


This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?



Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.



Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.


Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president
taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession
on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy.



Dave



So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:25:34 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
... Reagan
ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down
economics".


You really do live in a fantasy world.

Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true
way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits.

And tax cuts....... Gee, sound familiar?

Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo"
economics never worked.

They most certainly worked. History will prove that out.


Them's the facts.

No, once again you cling to someone's opinion as fact.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

P.Fritz wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does
tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.



http://zfacts.com/p/480.html


This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?



Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.



Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.


Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president
taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession
on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy.



Dave



So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?

Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own
conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did
nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we
experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that
perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and
flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it
was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that
a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession
and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly
evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the
crest of any economic boons.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:



On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:





If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does
tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.




http://zfacts.com/p/480.html



This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?




Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.




Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.


Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a president
taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent recession
on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy.




Dave



So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?


Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own
conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did
nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we
experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that
perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and
flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it
was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that
a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession
and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly
evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the
crest of any economic boons.

Dave


Might you agree that the market reflects to some degree the optimism (or
lack thereof) investors? Thus CURRENT policy is reflected by the
markets perception of the future?

This might explain both the dramatic rise under Clinton, and the
somewhat less dramatic fall under Bush2.

... Reagan
ended that recession, with little things like "trickle down
economics".


You really do live in a fantasy world.

Reagan ended the "stagflation" of the early 1980s in the tried-and-true
way... by gov't spending & increasing deficits.


Dave Hall wrote:
And tax cuts....... Gee, sound familiar?


So, if "tax cuts" (by which I assume you mean tax cuts for the
wealthiest 1%) are big part of why the economy did eventually revive
under Reagan, then why hasn't the economy revived significantly in 4
years of Bush tax cuts? Huh? Why is that, Dave?



Even Reagan cabinet members agree that "trickle down" or "voodoo"
economics never worked.


They most certainly worked. History will prove that out.


Really? Ask Greenspan. Of course, his opinions on the economy are only a
bunch of liberal ravings, but he's said the 'trickle-down' economics are
bunkum... in fact IIRC that is the exact word he used...



Them's the facts.


No, once again you cling to someone's opinion as fact.


Let me put it this way... on matters of national fiscal policy &
economics, I take Alan Greenspan's opinion as much much closer to fact
that your opinion (which is pretty much an empty parroting of
right-wingnut propaganda).

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:32 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

P.Fritz wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does
tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under
Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.



http://zfacts.com/p/480.html


This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?



Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.



Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.


Typical liebral that thinks there is an immediate reaction to a
president
taking office.........just like those that blame the most recent
recession
on Bush. A presidents's policies can take years to affect the economy.



Dave



So the great market rise under Clinton can be credited to Bush1, Regan,
or Carter?

Actually, the market rises and falls predominately by its own
conditions, in spite of which guy is in the big office. Clinton did
nothing which could be directly related to the economic growth that we
experienced in the 90's (nor did Bush 1). It could be argued that
perception influences the market to some degree. The market ebbs and
flows in cycles. As high as the tech sector went in the late 90's, it
was not surprising (and in fact was predicted by many economists) that
a recession followed. Bush's tax cuts may have mitigated the recession
and lessened its impact to some degree. But the market is constantly
evolving. We have to learn to adapt if we want to continue to ride the
crest of any economic boons.

Dave


The long term boom was do greatly to the Reagan tax cuts...........allowing
people to keep more of the proceeds of taking investment risks moved a lot
of money out of the bond sector and into R&D and the like. On the other
hand, Clinton's tax increase, along with the cap on executive pay
deductibility, led to a focus on increasing stock prices, which ultimately
led to the market collapse. Liebrals tend to think statically, i.e., that
behavior will not change when presented with a tax increase etc. Reality
proves that is not true.