 DogfatherPremium
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. |
|
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. |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | 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) |
|
1 edit | 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. |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Wow... Can't remember the last time someone actually defended the Carter administration. There's a reason for that. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | 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....
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
| 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/SurveyOutputServletNow 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! |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
| reply to Alpine
Well facts speak for themselves, now don't they. |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | 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
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | 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. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to jc100
More like your OMISSION of facts like the ERTA speak for themselves. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
wifi4milezBig 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.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
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. |
|
| reply to Dogfather
See reply below. BLS.GOV > Google. Facts in hard data trump personal tales of "Woh Me" and bias. Ouch. |
|
