dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4514
share rss forum feed


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

And in a year they'll be wishing they hadn't

This is what happened in 1982, 1992 and even a bit in 2001...these types of companies (technical) dump good chunks of their skilled labor and then are completely screwed when the economy recovers.


jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Well 2001 was a recession but nothing compared to this one. I wouldn't remember the 1982 one, I was a baby heh. However, the data on 1982 stuck us at 10 percent unemployment. Will we get that high? It might very well happen if this trend continues. I am certain the november stats for unemployment are going to rise to prob 6.8 and maybe even 7. Will this continue to the 9 or 10 percent mark? Time tells. It all depends if things get sorted. While people say this is the worst since the great depression, this is probably not all that truthful. I mean we do have a credit crunch, housing crunch, financial crunch, and many factors at play. Unemployment wise though, 1982 saw 10 percent (as stated) and the Great Depression had 25 percent. So time tells where this one ranks in the scheme of things.


extreme100
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI

1 recommendation

said by jc100:

However, the data on 1982 stuck us at 10 percent unemployment. Will we get that high? It might very well happen if this trend continues.
True but back then we suffered with Jimmy Carter's 22% 'misery index'.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_ind···onomics)

jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

1 recommendation

Actually, Regan ran things in 1982. Wikipedia isn't a source. Regan took office in 1982 and if you so look at bls.gov, it goes to show that Reganomics were a failure, and all years under Regan saw MASSIVE unemployment.

January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981 - Carter's term
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 - Regan's term

Now go here and type in the years 1970-1989

»data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Now only will you see Carter inherited similar numbers when he took office, but they began to fall significantly during his administration. Towards the end, numbers resettled back at pre Carter figures. However, it wasn't until the second and third year of Regan Administration late 1982 / 1983 we saw double digits. Reganomics sucked. Star wars, and his whole plan was a failure. Carter is not to blame for this one.



Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA

2 recommendations

Wow... Can't remember the last time someone actually defended the Carter administration. There's a reason for that.



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Now only will you see Carter inherited similar numbers when he took office, but they began to fall significantly during his administration. Towards the end, numbers resettled back at pre Carter figures. However, it wasn't until the second and third year of Regan Administration late 1982 / 1983 we saw double digits. Reganomics sucked. Star wars, and his whole plan was a failure. Carter is not to blame for this one.
HA! Thanks for the mid morning laugh. I hope you really dont believe everything you just wrote....
--


viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Actually, Regan ran things in 1982. Wikipedia isn't a source. Regan took office in 1982 and if you so look at bls.gov, it goes to show that Reganomics were a failure, and all years under Regan saw MASSIVE unemployment.

January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981 - Carter's term
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 - Regan's term

Now go here and type in the years 1970-1989

»data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Now only will you see Carter inherited similar numbers when he took office, but they began to fall significantly during his administration. Towards the end, numbers resettled back at pre Carter figures. However, it wasn't until the second and third year of Regan Administration late 1982 / 1983 we saw double digits. Reganomics sucked. Star wars, and his whole plan was a failure. Carter is not to blame for this one.
QFT!


footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

2 recommendations

reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Reganomics sucked. Star wars, and his whole plan was a failure. Carter is not to blame for this one.
As someone that wasn't a baby in 1982 and lived through the times in question, I can tell you that you don't have a clue. The nation SUFFERED under Ford and Carter and recovered greatly under Reagan. It wasn't until George Bush the elder foolishly raised taxes that we started draining the economy again.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash

jc100

join:2002-04-10
reply to Alpine

Well facts speak for themselves, now don't they.


jc100

join:2002-04-10
reply to wifi4milez

Numbers don't lie, now do they. Obviously, the numbers speak volumes here. Nixon and Ford did a Horrible job. Carter inherited that bad job, as you look at the numbers. Towards the end of his administration, things reverted back to pre Carter Numbers. Yet, when regan took office, those numbers SOARED. Proof is in the pudding.


jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit
reply to footballdude

Wonderful. Yet, the numbers don't lie. It wasn't until Late 1982 / Mid 1983.. That was almost 2+ Full years into Regans Term, did the economy hit double digits. Whose fault is that? Obviously not Carters. Look at the trend and numbers for yourself. They are the proof int he pudding. Regan was a failure. No matter how you slice it. Regan had star wars. Regan had the Iran Contra Crisis. Regan Had Oliver North who sold weapons to Iran. Regan had the CIA selling drugs in South America to Fund the Sandistas. Worst of all, HE GAVE US our first trillion dollar deficit and record unemployment. I see failure and a precursor to George Bush Jr in Regan. As for Sr. Failure transcends down the blood line. Like father Like son. However, at least Sr. didnt botch things nearly as bad as Jr.



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Numbers don't lie, now do they. Obviously, the numbers speak volumes here. Nixon and Ford did a Horrible job. Carter inherited that bad job, as you look at the numbers. Towards the end of his administration, things reverted back to pre Carter Numbers. Yet, when regan took office, those numbers SOARED. Proof is in the pudding.
Alternatively, one could look at the thousands of other studies out there that prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, anyone who was not in diapers during the time period in question will laugh in your face at those assertions.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

»www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
--



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

Nice bit of revisionist history. Reaganomics is what got out out of Carter's mess. It just took a couple of years to get the tax code changes necessary to fix it. Soon after we had a growth explosion, unfortunately it was surpassed by a Democratic controlled Congressional spending atomic bomb.

Carter trashed the economy. Reagan cut taxes, the economy grew rapidly (because people don't get jobs from poor people, that's trickle-down) and revenues to the Treasury SOARED. Congress just spent it all and then some. Those are the facts.

If Obama would slash gov't spending and cut taxes across the board we would be out of our current economic mess in no time followed by another huge economic expansion which ultimately leads to increased Treasury revenues. Unfortunately Pelosi's politburo controlling spending has about the same chances as a snowball in hell.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit
reply to jc100

More like your OMISSION of facts like the ERTA speak for themselves.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 recommendations

reply to jc100

You ignore what was going on those first two years. Reagan faced an uphill battle against the Democratic controlled Congress getting our tax code changed...about 2 years (late into 1981). And of course it took another year or so for those changes to fix the Carter disaster.

You should probably actually learn the whole story instead of picking some selective numbers to copy and paste.

Google is your friend, specifically the ERTA.


neil0311

join:2005-07-24
Marietta, GA

2 recommendations

reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Actually, Regan ran things in 1982. Wikipedia isn't a source. Regan took office in 1982 and if you so look at bls.gov, it goes to show that Reganomics were a failure, and all years under Regan saw MASSIVE unemployment.
HUH? This isn't a political forum, but I can tell you that I was a voting, tax paying, college student and working adult during Reagan's two terms, and you have no clue what you're talking about. By your own admission you were a baby.

Volker was cleaning up Carter's mess by raising interest rates...the result was unemployment. The Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 were key to bringing the economy back, and it expanded until the next recession in 1991-2. The 80's were a pretty good time.


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
reply to Dogfather

said by Dogfather:

You ignore what was going on those first two years. Reagan faced an uphill battle against the Democratic controlled Congress getting our tax code changed...about 2 years (late into 1981). And of course it took another year or so for those changes to fix the Carter disaster.

You should probably actually learn the whole story instead of picking some selective numbers to copy and paste.

Google is your friend, specifically the ERTA.
Dont even waste the effort arguing with him. The simple fact that he is attempting to spout the "benefits" of the Carter era (especially when compared to Reagan's terms) immediately dashes whatever limited credibility he had to begin with. There is a reason that Reagan is almost universally admired (among all parties), whereas finding a person who still supports Carter is like finding a needle in a haystack.
--

Expand your moderator at work

jc100

join:2002-04-10

4 edits
reply to wifi4milez

Re: And in a year they'll be wishing they hadn't

Regan is universally admired? Really?

- Iran Contra Crisis with Oliver North
- Cia Selling Drugs in South America to fund the Sandistas
- Star Wars
- First Trillion Dollar Debt in U.S. History
- Reganomics

Please.. Enlighten me how such failures promote admiration. There's no needle in a haystack. There's a lot of mess, and not a big enough mop... HARD NUMBERS from BLS.GOV paint a picture, and you just can't face that head on.

As for blame, funny. Clinton had a Republican Congress and got plenty done. Seems to me if Regan was such a man to inspire awe and admiration, he could have pulled the flock together. Instead, he sank this country into a crisis.

P.S. People liked Regan as he was a Charmer and for his past Acting Jobs. Just as American's liked Bush. He struck them as a guy who they could drink a beer with. Doesn't mean Regan or Bush were good leaders. Just they had charming skills. Plenty of Dictators and Mass Murderers in history were charmers, too. Want to sell me on how they were good people, since they won favor of many?

Try again.


jc100

join:2002-04-10
reply to Dogfather

See reply below. BLS.GOV > Google. Facts in hard data trump personal tales of "Woh Me" and bias. Ouch.



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

said by jc100:

People liked Regan as he was a Charmer and for his past Acting.
Right. It had nothing to do with fixing the economy, resolving the Iran hostage crisis, or setting in motion the collapse of the Soviet Union.
--


jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Fixing the economy? How? By sinking us in OUR FIRST trillion dollar deficit? Wasting Money on Star Wars? Selling Drugs in South America while we Funded the Sandistas? So on and So forth. He fixed nothing. Matter of fact, prior to regan, PEOPLE OWED US MONEY. Regan sank us in debt to others.

As for collapsing the soviet union, that's been a catch 22. On one hand, we brought down the soviet empire. On the other, we probably would have been better off letting it stand. Many of those countries are far from free, are breeding grounds for fundamentalists, and live under worse dictatorships than the USSR served. Let's face it, we didnt have those "Stans" training terrorists when the USSR ran them.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

quote:
- Iran Contra Crisis with Oliver North
- Cia Selling Drugs in South America to fund the Sandistas
- Star Wars
- First Trillion Dollar Debt in U.S. History
- Reganomics
More liberal revisionist history.

Contras were fighting Soviet socialist expansionism as were we. Of course the Democrats in Congress loved socialists so they wrote the unconstitutional Boland Amendment to try and stop Reagan from combating the Soviets. To circumvent this we sold obsolete HAWK missiles to Iran who then in turn funneled the money to the Contras. The Boland Amendment was later repealed rather than Congress allowing the embarrassment of it getting to the Supreme Court where it would have been bitch slapped hard. Simply put, it ultimately was not within the Constitutional authority of Congress who have stopped the Iran-Contra transaction and all the secret BS wouldn't have been necessary had Congress understood separation of powers.

CIA didn't fund the Sandinistas, they "allowed" the Contras, who were rebels against the Marxist Sandinistas to drug traffic. The CIA has done this stuff since WWII, starting in 1947 and continuing through the CLINTON administration (go google Eugenio Molina Osorio or Gen. Ramon Gullien Davila).

Star Wars is what broke the back of the Soviet Union. The Soviets spent so much on military spending trying to fight advanced US technology like ABM and Star Wars research that their social side was left in ruins leading to the rise of Gorbachev and other reformers who saw no way to "beat" the U.S. militarily and basically "surrendered" to Reagan, ending the Cold War.

Trillion dollar debt? Guess you forgot who was running Congress. Let's not forget that Reagan's tax cuts resulted in INCREASED revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The Democratic controlled Congress just spent it all and more, like a bunch of drunken sailors. You don't remember the 80's but the Democrats did in the 80's what the Republican Congress did in the 2000's...spend spend spend.

Reaganomics was a HUGE success that got us out of the Carter disaster...lower taxes, more jobs AND increased Treasury revenues. As much as liberals want to deny the simple fact of life, trickle-down economics works. People don't get jobs from poor people.

You should actually open a history book instead of spouting socialist talking points.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

Typical liberal symbolism over substance.

Uh, ALL FACTS > cherry picked statistics

Sure, go ahead and ignore the rest of reality and the chronology of ACTUAL EVENTS that lead to those statistics and the timeline in which they occurred.

With your logic let's go look at American death statistics for Dec 1941 to Aug 1945 and say that it's because Truman was a bad president. The circumstances that lead to those statistics are, according to you, irrelevant.


jc100

join:2002-04-10
reply to Dogfather

Ah yes, More right ring Falsehoods.

A) You enjoy socialism bud. You got hospitals in the U.S., Roads in the U.S., Schools, Emergency services, etc. Those are ALL SOCIALIZED. You pay a small portion of the taxes, along with everyone else. Those go into a collective pot, and are dished out to contracts to carry out said services. Yet, being you are NOT the only one building the roads, funding the schools, etc, you are socialized by the 300 million other tax payers. How about this. You pay for the FULL COST of teacher salaries. Say there are 50 teachers and 400 students. Instead of asking the city and other tax payers to foot the bill, the parents of those 400 students should pay the 5 or 6 million it would cost to run that school in a given year. Lets see 6 million / 400 = about 15,000 PER FAMILY in this instance. I like that idea. So get off your socialism soap box. Unless you are paying for everything out of pocket, America is as much socialized as ANY OTHER NATION. You right wingers have just stupefied you into believing you should see LITTLE RETURN on your money so big business can get all the subsidies.. Farming.. for one ay?

As for Soviet Expansion.. We had McCarthyism / Red Scare/ Vietnam etc,. You know how these all ended? In absolute failures. Obviously, the world's not going to end with socialism. It takes place here in America. See above. More right ring stupidity and propaganda.

Laughable is your response to the Iran Contra Crisis. Oliver North was Convicted SMART ONE of selling Arms to Iran. Do you read history, or is history something your type ignore?

Regarding the sandistas, the CIA admitted to selling drugs to fund them. Watch the Movie American War on Drugs or google anything regarding these events. Obviously, you're making up of history suits you better. To prove this point, we had no problems with RUTHLESS DICTACTORS like Noriega running the show. We just didn't like he ran a side business and stopped being our puppet. As long as Dictators like Batista, Noriega, etc do as they are told. We don't care what happens to the people. Just so long as our agenda is carried out. Once again, you FAIL.

Stars wars broke up the soviet union? No, an ARMS RACE BROKE UP the soviet union. Star wars was a BILLION DOLLAR FAILURE that didn't do anything but squander american tax payer dollars. Spin doctor much?

Trillion dollar debt? Guess you forgot who was running Congress - Just cause Congress Approves, doesn't mean the President has to spend it =). Nice try though. Regan had no qualms about using the money and sinking us into debt, as much as Congress .

Funny Enough, these fiscally conservative Republicans.. Regan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr have added to our debt. Clinton had it under control. Funny ay? Bush Jr alone has added 6 trillion out of the 10.

So now, has history and your civics teacher failed you much? Your take on anything regarding history and reality are flawed.



Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

reply to jc100

You have zero clue what you're talking about. Yeah, Ukraine was better off under Soviet tyranny, uh huh. I guess East Germany is worse off now as well.

And sure guy, there was no terrorism before 1991.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to jc100

said by jc100:

Well facts speak for themselves, now don't they.
The fact is it's pretty hard to listen to someone that can't even spell the former President's name right.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

2 recommendations

reply to jc100

Hospitals and roads aren't "socialism" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you found out about a universal heathcare program we don't know about or don't have to pay car registration or license fees). As for the red scare, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. It was Kennedy that got us into Vietnam and in typical gov't fashion, politicians tried to run the war instead of letting the military do it. It's the same mess that prolonged the Iraq war...politics and poll-taking

Oliver North? You mean the guy Reagan FIRED? And you're the one in need of an education. He wasn't convicted for selling arms to Iran. He was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, destruction of documents and obstruction of a congressional inquiry and in 1990 all of those convictions were VACATED. Much like Martha Stewart, North wasn't busted for ANYTHING the Congress was trying to bust him for. He got temporarily busted for what he did during the Democrat run witch-hunt. It's the same which-hunt bullcrap that Republicans did to Clinton...busted him for perjury, not anything he actually did outside the courtroom.

Yep, I'm going to get my "facts" from "American War" instead of actual history. Of course you ignore 50 years of CIA involvement in this and act as if the CIA did it just this one time under direct instruction from Reagan. What a joke.

What to you think propelled the 1980's arms race genius? It was STAR WARS, and obviously you don't even know what Star Wars was. SDI was more than space based weapons. It was KE weapons, advanced missile launch detection systems, ABMs...it was a comprehensive program designed to make the increasing accurate Soviet heavy ballistic missiles obsolete and a lot of these programs are in use today under the BMDO. Without ballistic missiles and the survivability of the (at the time) new LGM-118A (MX) missiles, the Soviets were sunk so they spent and spent and spent on increasing their military capabilities through conventional as well as nuclear means in hopes of overwhelming SDI to hit Minuteman III and MX sites and it broke their backs.

Don't believe it? What went on in the late 1980's is EXACTLY what is going on now. The US is deploying minimal ballistic missile defenses in Europe and the Russians are spending a TON of cash to insure they can overwhelm it. SDI at maturity would have been BMD x 1000 and Gorbachev KNEW he didn't have the money to counter this. Their social infrastructure continued to collapse because of military spending in the face of SDI. So he for all intents and purposes surrendered and SDI was subsequently scaled back during the 1990's to the BMDO we see today.

Yeah, let's lay all the blame for Congressional spending on Reagan and let Congress off scott free.

As for Clinton...for the first two years with Clinton and a democratic congress, the budget was a disaster. Only after the Democrats got their asses kicked in 1994 and Republicans actually controlled both houses of Congress did the budget come under control. It's very convenient of you to forget about the "government shut downs" because Clinton wanted to spend a ton of money and Gingrich and the Republicans were saying no. Clinton and the liberal media demonized Gingrich for not wanting to blow up gov't with tons of new and expanding socialist programs. Convenient you forget about how libs said Gingrich wanted to starve children because he cut the increase in the school lunch programs...no didn't cut, just a cut in the increase. It was only when Republicans turned into raving socialist Democrats in 2000 that crap turned upside-down.

But thanks for your fiction, it was an interesting fairy-tale.



Jaye

@arpdriveonline.com
reply to jc100

Reagan was sworn in Jan. 20, 1981.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Sammer

said by Sammer:

The fact is it's pretty hard to listen to someone that can't even spell the former President's name right.
He could be talking about Donald Regan, who was President Reagan's Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty