patrick.net

I admit Reagan's spending was a problem, but there is no way that the spending increase instantly affected the economy. So the growth was initially caused by something else.

I contend that it was from raising the interest rates and deregulation, both caused by Carter, one through Volckner. Not that Carter was Little Bo Peep, but on these two points he was good.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BZU

real YOY % growth of Federal spending.

Showing the nice +~5% dosing the economy was getting for much of the 1980s.

Another graph showing what REALLY happened,1970s - 1990s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BZX

This is the most explanatory FRED graph that I'm aware of.

If you don't "get" this one, you're not going to understand anything about our economy.

No dumb ass, CBO projections are notorious for in accuracy.

In 1964 or so the CBO projected that medicare would cost:

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”
Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.
Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/

indigenous says

No dumb ass, CBO projections are notorious for in accuracy.

In 1964 or so the CBO projected that medicare would cost:

That's interesting since the CBO didn't exist until 1975. Note the words in the story "ways and means committee estimated" and "Congress estimated". Amazing you don't know how your own government works.

bob2356 says

That's interesting since the CBO didn't exist until 1975. Note the words in the story "ways and means committee estimated" and "Congress estimated". Amazing you don't know how your own government works.

Beside the point, the projections were wrong, and cost much more than projected. Now it is what north of 500 billion.

Reality says

No, Reagan was not a Keynesian. The growth rate of federal government spending slowed down significantly during Reagan's 1st term compared to the 1970's. As you can see from the same table, the real massive "Keynesian" government spending increase years were the double-digit and near-double digit percentage increase years of the late 60's and 70's as well as 1981 before Reagan had his fingers on the federal budget process: 1966 (13.8% increase), 1967 (17%), 1968 (13%), 1972 (9.8%), 1974(9.6%), 1975(23%), 1976(12%), 1977(10%), 1978(12%), 1979(9.9%), 1980(17%), 1981(14.8%). By contrast, growth rate of government spending in Reagan budgets slowed down to 8% in 1983 and 5% in 1984

That's dancing around worthy of Fred Astaire.

Ok without skipping around and cherry picking years here are some simple numbers from your own spreadsheet.
budget doubled in the 1960's 8 years D 2 years R.
budget tripled in the 1970's 4 years D 6 years R.
budget doubled in the 1980's 10 years R.
budget went up 50% in the 1990's 2 years R 8 years D
budget doubled 2000-2010 8 years R 2 years D.

So why during the "keynesian" ( a term you apparently don't understand) years of the 1960's and 1970's was there very little deficit, yet during the non keynesian Reagan years the deficit and debt exploded? Cutting taxes dramatically while increasing spending 5-8% is the same overall as just increasing spending 10-12% while leaving taxes the same. The huge increase in debt says Reagan was a big time keynesian. First one since FDR.

Nice try though.

indigenous you should just give up you are getting completely WTFPWND!

yup1 says

indigenous you should just give up you are getting completely WTFPWND!

I see we have another one who believes in the glimmering graphs that you mutts put so much faith in.

I will give credit to Bob for not using them this once, but then goes on to make an ambiguous feeble point that this is a D vs R thing.

indigenous says

yup1 says

indigenous you should just give up you are getting completely WTFPWND!

I see we have another one who believes in the glimmering graphs that you mutts put so much faith in.

I will give credit to Bob for not using them this once, but then goes on to make an ambiguous feeble point that this is a D vs R thing.

Fucking funny that you don't even realize that you are getting WTFPWND! Dumbass!

indigenous says

I admit Reagan's spending was a problem, but there is no way that the spending increase instantly affected the economy. So the growth was initially caused by something else.

I contend that it was from raising the interest rates and deregulation, both caused by Carter, one through Volckner. Not that Carter was Little Bo Peep, but on these two points he was good.

The Reagan economic advisors wanted a slashing of government spending, cutting military expenditures, closing of Federal agencies, temporary tax hikes and reduction of regulations and higher interest rates.

Instead there was an increase in interest rates, no reduction in government spending and tax cuts. The higher interest rates cut off the inflation, the tax cuts pushed more money into the private sector and drove growth for about 7 years, but also pushed the deficit issue down the road.

The increase in the military spending was intended to act to bankrupt the Soviet union so that the US could eventually cut military spending. Having achieved the destruction of the Soviet Union the "peace dividend" was never paid as the military budget continues to grow.

Reagan was no real free market hero.

He talked a decent game. In the end his main focus was on fighting Communism, not on promoting "smaller government" and he used big government to fight it.

Call it Crazy says

Well, it would help if you knew how to spell if you wanted to make a point....

It's spelled: WTFPWNED

Dumbass!!

Does not change the fact that he is getting destroyed in his own thread lol.

He is getting destroyed by facts. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. He massively increased the national debt. This was during supposed good times no less. Most dumbass conservatives think he reduced taxes and reduced the size of government. I know this because I used to be a dumb conservative that believed this. Apparently there are still many dumb conservatives.

The funny thing about dumb conservatives is when you show them that all of the conservative leaders they idolize are all a bunch of deficit spending, war mongering whores, inevitably they proclaim that none of them are conservative. They have some fantasy conservative in their heads that does not fucking exist. If they did exist not even the fucking conservatives would vote for them.

When I point out to my conservative retired parents and inlaws that Medicare part D was never paid for and they should stop using it and give back the money they become a bunch of liberal whores. When I point out that medicare is socialism and they should give that back too they lie and say they paid for it and become a bunch of Socialists.

Conservatives constantly complain about Obamacare. When you ask them why they hate it they have no fucking clue as to why. They go over the Fox News talking points. When you ask them if it has helped anyone in the family they proclaim that it definitely has not. When you let them know that half the family is on it they proclaim that it has obviously not helped them it has most likely hurt them and caused them to have to pay more for coverage........of course it is the only reason they even have coverage.

Fucking Dumbass Conservatives!

indigenous says

I will give credit to Bob for not using them this once, but then goes on to make an ambiguous feeble point that this is a D vs R thing.

I used your own spreadsheet. Somehow a glimmering spreadsheet is different from a glimmering chart? Explain that part to me. I don't see anything ambiguous at all. The budget went up the same in the 80's as the 60's, 70's, and 2000's. So how did Reagan hold down increases other than in the few carefully selected years you choose if it went up the same? Simple assignment, point out how this is ambiguous.

What is my feeble point? Republicans spend like drunken sailors while claiming to be fiscally conservative? Nothing feeble there, irrefutable fact. That Reagan was one of the three biggest Keynesians in the last 100 years along with GWB and FDR. If my point is so weak then refute it. Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the heart of Keynes (no comments from the peanut gallery, I've read keynes and know there is more to it, I'm keeping it simple for indignant). These three borrowed far more money to stimulate the economy than any other president. Assignment part 2, explain how the three stooges are not keynesian if they borrowed huge amounts of money to stimulate the economy. That should be an interesting tap dance. Once Obama is out of office we will then have the 4 horseman of apocolypse. Perfect.

bob2356 says

Simple assignment, point out how this is ambiguous.

Follow your own assignments bitch.

This is not a R vs D thing, the article pointed out that O is doing all the wrong things, which is why we have such a anemic economy.bob2356 says

epublicans spend like drunken sailors while claiming to be fiscally conservative? Nothing feeble there, irrefutable fact.

Not that Ds don't. Every major war in the past 100 yr save Bush who as far as I'm concerned is a D.bob2356 says

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the heart of Keynes

Which indicates that Reagan was not a Keynesian. Not to mention the fact that he bargained with Tip O'neil who lied and increased the spending. Just like Gingrich held it down during Clinton's office, just like Peolosi increased it. To say that was solely Reagan is a misrepresentation.

bob2356 says

explain how the three stooges are not keynesian

History will see Obama as the most Keynesian of them all and will demonstrate that Keynesianism is a mere charade for politicians to seize power.

bob2356 says

You could try truth by facts once

Like government employees?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES9091000001

lowest since mid-1966

'course, gov't these days outsources everything I guess:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=C9I

real per-capita (age 15-64) federal spending

hmm, indigenous might be on to something . . .

Over the 80s, spending rose 33%, 1990s were flat.

Calling the Bush-Obama transition at $16,500 shows spending jumped $1500/yr, or 10%, but this was an immediate jump. The 2009 stimulus was really something.

Of course, it was only replacing the truly stupendous stealth stimulus of the housing bubble cash shower, 2003-2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=C9M

real per-capita annual consumer credit expansion

showing we were borrowing $7000 per capita during the Bush Boom, twice the expansion rate of the mid-80s good times.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Simple assignment, point out how this is ambiguous.

Follow your own assignments bitch.

Translation, I don't have an answer.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the heart of Keynes

Which indicates that Reagan was not a Keynesian.

Oh, that's interesting. So what is it called when a republican president(s) borrows huge quantities of money to stimulate the economy? I didn't realize the the conjugation was different depending on political party.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

explain how the three stooges are not keynesian

History will see Obama as the most Keynesian of them all and will demonstrate that Keynesianism is a mere charade for politicians to seize power.

The answer to all questions is Obama does it. Perfect. Is it really so terribly painful to admit that your heros are just as bad as Obama (who is definately not my hero)? The words you are searching so desperately for are "I was wrong, I fucked up". Followed by my name is indigenous and I'm am a brainwashed rushbot with zero objectivity. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

bob2356 says

Oh, that's interesting. So what is it called when a republican president(s) borrows huge quantities of money to stimulate the economy? I didn't realize the the conjugation was different depending on political party.

So you put him in the same category as FDR, yea that makes sense.

As I stated at post #3 Reagan got credit for what Volcker did and Carter actually deregulated quite a bit. Not to give him too much credit as he did give us the energy dept and Fed education which are both colossal failures.

The point of the article was not Ds vs Rs. It is that Obama is doing the wrong things to get the economy going. The proof is this 6 yr recovery that is not a recovery.

"Ronald Reagan lightened the weight of government as measured by taxation and regulation. Obama has done the opposite. According to the annual “snapshot of the federal regulatory state” compiled by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, four of the five largest yearly totals of pages in the Federal Register — the record of regulations — have occurred during the Obama administration. The CEI’s delightfully cheeky “unconstitutionality index,” measuring Congress’s excessive delegation of its lawmaking policy, was 51 in 2013. This means Congress passed 72 laws but unelected bureaucrats issued 3,659 regulations.

The more than $1.1 trillion of student-loan debt — the fastest-growing debt category, larger than credit-card or auto-loan debt — is restraining consumption, as is the retirement of Baby Boomers. In 2012, more than 70 percent of college graduates had student-loan debts averaging about $30,000. This commencement season’s diploma recipients are entering an economy where more than 40 percent of recent college graduates are either unemployed or in jobs that do not require a college degree. This is understandable, given that 44 percent of the job growth since the recession ended has been in food services, retail, or other low-wage jobs.

In April, the number of persons under 25 in the workforce declined by 484,000. Unsurprisingly, almost one in three (31 percent) persons 18 to 34 are living with their parents, including 25 percent who have jobs."

bob2356 says

That's dancing around worthy of Fred Astaire.

Ok without skipping around and cherry picking years here are some simple numbers from your own spreadsheet.

budget doubled in the 1960's 8 years D 2 years R.

You are the one doing the fancy dancing. There is nothing magical about decadal boundaries. The Keynesian spending sprees took place in the late 60's and much of the 70's. It's silly of you to group the early 60's into this.

budget tripled in the 1970's 4 years D 6 years R.

budget doubled in the 1980's 10 years R.

budget went up 50% in the 1990's 2 years R 8 years D

budget doubled 2000-2010 8 years R 2 years D.

Partisan tally is even more absurd, both LBJ and Nixon administrations were big time Keynesians.

So why during the "keynesian" ( a term you apparently don't understand) years of the 1960's and 1970's was there very little deficit, yet during the non keynesian Reagan years the deficit and debt exploded?

"We are all Keynesians now" was an infamous quip by Nixon in the early 70's. The late 1960's and 1970's was a Keynesian policy experiment. The 1980's deficit was mostly due to tax cutting, not Keynsian government spending experiment.

Cutting taxes dramatically while increasing spending 5-8% is the same overall as just increasing spending 10-12% while leaving taxes the same.

They are not at all the same. Life is more than just government deficit. Tax cuts are supply side stimulus, whereas government spendings are demand side stimulus. You see the drastic difference between the two results when looking at inflation numbers.

The huge increase in debt says Reagan was a big time keynesian. First one since FDR.

Both LBJ and Nixon came long before Reagan. Government spending growth slowed down during Reagan budget years compared to the 1970's and late 1960's that came before him.

Keynes' primary mistake in economic theory is ignoring the temporal differential between supply and demand. That's what makes Keynesian policies no different from artificially creating natural disasters. The supply siders like Reagan and his policy advisors take the opposite approach: it's akin to surprise good harvest. Supply=Demand only in a constantly revolving unchanging world, not in the reality that we all have to live. At any instant, producers and consumers face information asymmetry. That means Supply does not equal Demand during any infinitisimal segment of time, just like a flying arrow is not stationary during any infinitisimal segment of time; price is constantly in the process of change depending on how the asymmetrical information is propagated.

Keynesianism is just a scam marketed to people who never learned Calculus and have fallen for the Zeno Paradox about a flying arrow being allegedly stationary at any instant therefore can never reach its target.

Reality says

ou are the one doing the fancy dancing. There is nothing magical about decadal boundaries. The Keynesian spending sprees took place in the late 60's and much of the 70's. It's silly of you to group the early 60's into this.

Oh I get it, in your world randomly picking years for the best numbers is methodical statistical analysis. Comparing 5 decades head to head is fancy dancing. That certainly makes sense to someone, just not me.

Reality says

Cutting taxes dramatically while increasing spending 5-8% is the same overall as just increasing spending 10-12% while leaving taxes the same.

They are not at all the same. Life is more than just government deficit. Tax cuts are supply side stimulus, whereas government spendings are demand side stimulus. You see the drastic difference between the two results when looking at inflation numbers.

That is utter complete and total bullshit. Debt is debt. There is no supply side/demand side. The money is borrowed and goes into the economy. Period. You need to reread keynes (I doubt you have ever read him to start with).

58 12:34pm Sun 1 Jun 2014 Share Quote Permalink Like (1) Dislike

bob2356 says

That's dancing around worthy of Fred Astaire.

Ok without skipping around and cherry picking years here are some simple numbers from your own spreadsheet.

budget doubled in the 1960's 8 years D 2 years R.

You are the one doing the fancy dancing. There is nothing magical about decadal boundaries. The Keynesian spending sprees took place in the late 60's and much of the 70's. It's silly of you to group the early 60's into this.

budget tripled in the 1970's 4 years D 6 years R.

budget doubled in the 1980's 10 years R.

budget went up 50% in the 1990's 2 years R 8 years D

budget doubled 2000-2010 8 years R 2 years D.

Partisan tally is even more absurd, both LBJ and Nixon administrations were big time Keynesians.

So why during the "keynesian" ( a term you apparently don't understand) years of the 1960's and 1970's was there very little deficit, yet during the non keynesian Reagan years the deficit and debt exploded?

"We are all Keynesians now" was an infamous quip by Nixon in the early 70's. No it's not, it's part of a larger quote by milton friedman taken out of context. Nixon said "I am now a Keynesian in economics" .talking about price and income controls. You manage to contradict yourself constantly. You call nixon and lbh who didn't run deficits keynsians, even though deficit spending by cutting taxes and increasing spending in recession is the cornerstone of keynes, but say Reagan who ran enormous deficits and debts by cutting taxes and increasing spending wasn't.

Reality says

Both LBJ and Nixon came long before Reagan. Government spending growth slowed down during Reagan budget years compared to the 1970's and late 1960's that came before him.

What do you smoke before you post, I want some, I really do. Budget doubled in the 60's, budget doubled in the 70's, budget doubled in the 80's. Reagan was president 8 years of the 10. If growth slowed for 8 of the 10 years then how did it manage the same growth as the previous 20 years? Show me the math on this one. Plus, a presidents first year is the previous presidents budget.

"Government spending growth slowed down during Reagan budget years compared to the 1970's and late 1960's that came before him."

Not in real terms.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=CbC

red is nominal YOY spending % growth, blue is real

and shows that under Carter real YOY growth was in the same band as Reagan, 0-5% (outside the Fed-caused 1980-82 recession years).

Of course, what Reagan really proved was "deficits don't matter".

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Total debt to GDP, and shows that this ratio declined until the Reaganauts got control of the budget and started their "Voodoo Economics" looting of the nation's fisc.