Andy9o8 2 #76 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Not so fast there esquire. Timing of that was planned. Unlike the rest of the real world DC is closed for business after lunch on most Fridays. Oh, everyone knows that; it's always been done. What I was calling BS on was the idiotic claim that the timing prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #77 July 26, 2010 QuoteYet you claim that the economy changes on a dime???? Were you not also the person that claimed that only the NBER can call a recession? So, how can you blame someone for not claiming something before the NEBR AND blame them for calling something before the NEBR???? Irony score 10/10 for you, 10/10 Provide a link to the post where I claimed the economy changes on a dime. Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. They don't have any top secret intel that is denied to the rest of us. Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly claims.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 July 27, 2010 Quote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #79 July 27, 2010 QuoteQuote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. They don't have any top secret intel that is denied to the rest of us. Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly posts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 July 27, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. They don't have any top secret intel that is denied to the rest of us. Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly posts. You've long held that only the NBER counts. Now you're saying that anyone can make their own determination? What you're really saying is that it's a recession when you personally think it is. If the Republicans look at the available data and say it's not, they're in denial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #81 July 27, 2010 QuoteQuote > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. QuoteYou said disaster occurs every time it was lowered to under 40. It's hardly semantics to note that we had a pretty nice run when Clinton raised it to a level that was still under that made up number. Arguing 39.6 is vastly different than 40 is semantic. If you're relegated to that, well, I'm sorry for you. Your garbage ran it from 70 to 28, then 40 (or 39.6 if you're afraid to round as is customary) to 35. Again, all these numbers are rounded to avoid the princess perfecctionist ridiculousness. You'll argue 39.6 vs 40, yet you won't argue lowering taxes, esp into teh 30's, 20's is a great way to fuck the economy. We see your agenda. QuoteIf < 40 is diaster, 41 or 42 can hardly be good. I agree, there is no majic number, it's progressive and the top brkt s/b in the 50-60% range. Historically it's hard to argue that below that has been constantly great. Altho oour best run was at 40, that was once and with the assistance of LOWERED MILITARY SPENDING FOR 12 YEARS AND GENERAL MILITARY INNACTIVITY. Now be semantic and tell us about the Gulf War, a 2-week war. The idea is that we didn't get invloved in these protracted, expensive wars. So the GHWB era shouwed us that cutting the military and raising taxes works. Raising the top brkt to 50-60% would be a great safeguard, but the morons cry when we raise it to 40%, then lower it again, tacking on 5T to the debt and calling it success. QuoteJust admit you're a lousy back tester who can't even keep his data straight. 39.6 equals 40 in the real world, it doesn't when you have no argument to make. I guess it beats talking about how your turds have driven it way below 40 or 39.6 and fucked us all. QuoteThere's absolutely no thinking behind your 40 value, and it doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny. It's a rendering of history, something neo-nothings don't acknowledge. 40 is a good point at which falling below trends bad things, falling below 30 yields huge trouble every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #82 July 27, 2010 QuoteQuote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. Kelp, you've gone from some posters here considering you somewhat objective and moderate to a typical RWer living on semantics and resorting to one-liners. The truth usually sorts itself out in time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #83 July 27, 2010 Quote Kelp, you've gone from some posters here considering you somewhat objective and moderate to a typical RWer living on semantics and resorting to one-liners. The truth usually sorts itself out in time. One lines go where they are warranted. Kallend writes a lot of inflammatory BS; that's his game here. No need to feed it. You, otoh, believe that if you write enough words and enough posts, we'll believe you. Straight from that notion you ironically keep posting about - the noisy aggro types are the most clueless, are compensation. So I just like trying to inject some fact checking, since you make up a lot of weird stuff: > Now be semantic and tell us about the Gulf War, a 2-week war. The idea is that we didn't get invloved in these protracted, expensive wars. So the GHWB era shouwed us that cutting the military and raising taxes works. uh, the Gulf War was a hell of a lot longer than 2 weeks. Did you miss the 5 months of buildup, the 6 weeks of bombing, and the 100 hours of invasion? Worse, it wasn't completed and Gulf War II was basically inevitable. The cuts from the Peace Dividend (ie, the end of the Cold War) would be credited to Reagan, not Bush, if you're going to give it to a President. It's hilarious how you'll rant about Reagan, but Bush is your hero. Lame attempt to prove you're not hopelessly biased. His tax increases were not significant in that the deficit remained pretty damn high. That changed in the following administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #84 July 27, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. They don't have any top secret intel that is denied to the rest of us. Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly posts. You've long held that only the NBER counts. Now you're saying that anyone can make their own determination? What you're really saying is that it's a recession when you personally think it is. If the Republicans look at the available data and say it's not, they're in denial. Of course, we ALL had the exact same data to look at as NBER. Some of us just appear to be better at analyzing data. Turns out I was right and the right wing deniers were wrong. No big surprise there, it happens a lot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #85 July 27, 2010 Quote Of course, we ALL had the exact same data to look at as NBER. Some of us just appear to be better at analyzing data. Turns out I was right and the right wing deniers were wrong. No big surprise there, it happens a lot. Data gets revised. Initial GDP estimates, for example. Those remained positive into 2008 and was siezed upon by the GOP, along with the market results. You can make your own proclamations based on available data too (insisting the numbers are fudged, as seen these days by the GOP side), but if you want to do that, you have to give up saying that the NBER is the only authority. The anyone can look at the data theory works better with the simpler definition of recession (2 Qs of downturn). The more complex approach by the economists at the NBER would seem to be a bit more subjective, rather than a simple formula into which you plug various metrics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #86 July 28, 2010 QuoteProvide a link to the post where I claimed the economy changes on a dime. Sure how about every thread you blame the 2001 recession on Bush? Quote Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly claims. You mean the one where you jumped on folks for not calling it a recession before the NEBR did and then compare those to the ones where you jumped on folks for calling it a recession before the NEBR did? You have a double standard and use the NEBR to defend BOTH positions.... That is pretty slick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #87 July 28, 2010 QuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #88 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please. Debt increase is based on gross dollars, not adjusted for any given time. If not, the debt would be some unknown number since it was taken from X time in history. http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ So IOW's, $1 in 1985 is worth ~ 2.00 today. Shall we multiply Reagan's 1.8T by 2.0? I think yes. Reagan's added debt is 3.6T. In reality, it's a sliding scale since not all of his lofty debt was added in 1981, so that's why I chose 1985 to be honest; try it some time. Tell me, Mike, do you think the debt advertised is adjusted for future dates? It's bizzare to think you aren't aware the debt numbers are gross numbers for that time and for that matter, for all times but unadjusted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #89 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please. Debt increase is based on gross dollars, not adjusted for any given time. So, you lied when you said that was 1980 dollars, above. QuoteSo IOW's, $1 in 1985 is worth ~ 2.00 today. Shall we multiply Reagan's 1.8T by 2.0? I think yes. Well, why not? You're already making up stuff, why stop now? QuoteReagan's added debt is 3.6T. In reality, it's a sliding scale since not all of his lofty debt was added in 1981, so that's why I chose 1985 to be honest; try it some time. Maybe you should try it, yourself: Reagan's debt (2010 dollars) was 2.393T - not the 3.6T you claim. Percentage increase (2010 dollars) was just barely shy of doubling the debt, and not the tripling that you and kallend so famously (and dishonestly) claim.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #90 July 28, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Criticism QuoteReagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve problematically contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts[citation needed] ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990)[citation needed], so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.[37]. In 1982, during Reagan's second year in office, the U.S. economy fell into a recession. The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.[38] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #91 July 28, 2010 QuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #92 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. The article is silent as to whether either figure is adjusted for inflation. In any event, according to the CPI Inflation Calculator, $900 billion in 1981 dollars was worth $1.228 trillion in 1989 dollars. And $2.8 trillion in 1989 dollars would have been worth $2.053 trillion in 1981 dollars. So assuming these figures (which I think derive from the Congressional Budget Office) are expressed in raw numbers rather than inflation-adjusted numbers, the 1981-1989 debt variance, expressed in inflation-adjusted figures, while it did not increase by a triple, did increase by more than double, specifically, by a multiplier of 2.2811... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #93 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. So by how much did it increase in inflation adjusted dollars? Only by a factor of 2.3 Fiscal responsibility GOP style.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #94 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. So by how much did it increase in inflation adjusted dollars? In 2010 dollars, 2.4T over 8 years. QuoteOnly by a factor of 2.3 Actually, it only doubled - 2.4T to 4.8T in 2010 dollars. QuoteFiscal responsibility GOP style. Honesty, kallend/liberal style.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #95 July 29, 2010 Using 2010 dollars to express the multiplier factor of the inflation-adjusted increase in debt from 1981 to 1989 is a misleading application of statistical analysis, because as inflation increases over time, using later and later years' "dollars" keeps resulting in a smaller and smaller multiplier. This is a prime example of the old adage about "lies, damned lies and statistics", because one can selectively spin the value of a subject matter (ie., a raw data set) by selectively choosing the method of statistically analyzing it: same raw data; different statistical methods; different results. That's why, for example, the multiplier when expressed in 1981 dollars is 2.28111... , but when expressed in 1989 dollars, the multiplier has already begun to creep down to 2.280130. And thus, naturally, when expressed in 2010 dollars, the multiplier - for the same raw data - is even lower. So if you made the same argument, say, 10 years from now, using 2020 dollars, you'd probably (assuming net inflation between 2010 and 2020) be able to derive an even lower multiplier - again for the very same raw data. Thus, the most intellectually accurate way of expressing the increase in debt from 1981 to 1989 would be to gauge the real-world effect that increase had on the nation's economy as it once existed in 1981. And the best way of doing that - which is to say, the way that best reflects actual reality and best minimizes "spin" - is by using a multiplier derived from 1981 dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #96 July 29, 2010 In 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #97 July 29, 2010 QuoteIn 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, but what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. This is as bad as Mike taking the nominal GDP numbers to dumb down GWB's wonderful success as president. Mike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #98 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, The numbers are from treasurydirect - if I recall, you used the same site upthread, so you're saying your numbers are equally inaccurate. Regardless, prove them wrong. Quotebut what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. How about saying that the historical numbers are all "1980 dollars"? Where's that on the dishonesty scale? However, you *are* correct in that it should be the end of FY 88 for the end point. I can only claim 'kallend dating' as an excuse, what with Bush being responsible for the March 2001 recession. Anyway...corrected numbers (1981 $) 9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000 9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344 Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%) QuoteThis is as bad as Mike taking the nominal GDP numbers to dumb down GWB's wonderful success as president. That would be the same nominal GDP that you stated in the original post, before dishonestly changing it to real GDP while I was in the midst of answering it, yes? I mean, since we're talking about honesty, let's be honest, right? QuoteMike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. And perhaps if you were using the degree you went to college for, you'd understand honesty, period. But probably not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #99 July 29, 2010 Quote Mike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. Given the number of PhD's that lie with statistics, this is one of the dumber things you've said this week. Did your degree teach you to make up facts? How is that honest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #100 July 29, 2010 Quote Quote Quote In 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, The numbers are from treasurydirect - if I recall, you used the same site upthread, so you're saying your numbers are equally inaccurate. Regardless, prove them wrong. Quote but what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. How about saying that the historical numbers are all "1980 dollars"? Where's that on the dishonesty scale? However, you *are* correct in that it should be the end of FY 88 for the end point. I can only claim 'kallend dating' as an excuse, what with Bush being responsible for the March 2001 recession. t. Lucky is correct . Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 4 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #82 July 27, 2010 QuoteQuote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. Kelp, you've gone from some posters here considering you somewhat objective and moderate to a typical RWer living on semantics and resorting to one-liners. The truth usually sorts itself out in time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #83 July 27, 2010 Quote Kelp, you've gone from some posters here considering you somewhat objective and moderate to a typical RWer living on semantics and resorting to one-liners. The truth usually sorts itself out in time. One lines go where they are warranted. Kallend writes a lot of inflammatory BS; that's his game here. No need to feed it. You, otoh, believe that if you write enough words and enough posts, we'll believe you. Straight from that notion you ironically keep posting about - the noisy aggro types are the most clueless, are compensation. So I just like trying to inject some fact checking, since you make up a lot of weird stuff: > Now be semantic and tell us about the Gulf War, a 2-week war. The idea is that we didn't get invloved in these protracted, expensive wars. So the GHWB era shouwed us that cutting the military and raising taxes works. uh, the Gulf War was a hell of a lot longer than 2 weeks. Did you miss the 5 months of buildup, the 6 weeks of bombing, and the 100 hours of invasion? Worse, it wasn't completed and Gulf War II was basically inevitable. The cuts from the Peace Dividend (ie, the end of the Cold War) would be credited to Reagan, not Bush, if you're going to give it to a President. It's hilarious how you'll rant about Reagan, but Bush is your hero. Lame attempt to prove you're not hopelessly biased. His tax increases were not significant in that the deficit remained pretty damn high. That changed in the following administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #84 July 27, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Only NBER can officially call a recession, but the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. They don't have any top secret intel that is denied to the rest of us. Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly posts. You've long held that only the NBER counts. Now you're saying that anyone can make their own determination? What you're really saying is that it's a recession when you personally think it is. If the Republicans look at the available data and say it's not, they're in denial. Of course, we ALL had the exact same data to look at as NBER. Some of us just appear to be better at analyzing data. Turns out I was right and the right wing deniers were wrong. No big surprise there, it happens a lot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 July 27, 2010 Quote Of course, we ALL had the exact same data to look at as NBER. Some of us just appear to be better at analyzing data. Turns out I was right and the right wing deniers were wrong. No big surprise there, it happens a lot. Data gets revised. Initial GDP estimates, for example. Those remained positive into 2008 and was siezed upon by the GOP, along with the market results. You can make your own proclamations based on available data too (insisting the numbers are fudged, as seen these days by the GOP side), but if you want to do that, you have to give up saying that the NBER is the only authority. The anyone can look at the data theory works better with the simpler definition of recession (2 Qs of downturn). The more complex approach by the economists at the NBER would seem to be a bit more subjective, rather than a simple formula into which you plug various metrics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #86 July 28, 2010 QuoteProvide a link to the post where I claimed the economy changes on a dime. Sure how about every thread you blame the 2001 recession on Bush? Quote Perhaps you should re-read the "R-word" thread before making silly claims. You mean the one where you jumped on folks for not calling it a recession before the NEBR did and then compare those to the ones where you jumped on folks for calling it a recession before the NEBR did? You have a double standard and use the NEBR to defend BOTH positions.... That is pretty slick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 July 28, 2010 QuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #88 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please. Debt increase is based on gross dollars, not adjusted for any given time. If not, the debt would be some unknown number since it was taken from X time in history. http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ So IOW's, $1 in 1985 is worth ~ 2.00 today. Shall we multiply Reagan's 1.8T by 2.0? I think yes. Reagan's added debt is 3.6T. In reality, it's a sliding scale since not all of his lofty debt was added in 1981, so that's why I chose 1985 to be honest; try it some time. Tell me, Mike, do you think the debt advertised is adjusted for future dates? It's bizzare to think you aren't aware the debt numbers are gross numbers for that time and for that matter, for all times but unadjusted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYea, those are 1980's dollars Show where it states that, if you please. Debt increase is based on gross dollars, not adjusted for any given time. So, you lied when you said that was 1980 dollars, above. QuoteSo IOW's, $1 in 1985 is worth ~ 2.00 today. Shall we multiply Reagan's 1.8T by 2.0? I think yes. Well, why not? You're already making up stuff, why stop now? QuoteReagan's added debt is 3.6T. In reality, it's a sliding scale since not all of his lofty debt was added in 1981, so that's why I chose 1985 to be honest; try it some time. Maybe you should try it, yourself: Reagan's debt (2010 dollars) was 2.393T - not the 3.6T you claim. Percentage increase (2010 dollars) was just barely shy of doubling the debt, and not the tripling that you and kallend so famously (and dishonestly) claim.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #90 July 28, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Criticism QuoteReagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve problematically contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts[citation needed] ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990)[citation needed], so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.[37]. In 1982, during Reagan's second year in office, the U.S. economy fell into a recession. The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.[38] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 July 28, 2010 QuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #92 July 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. The article is silent as to whether either figure is adjusted for inflation. In any event, according to the CPI Inflation Calculator, $900 billion in 1981 dollars was worth $1.228 trillion in 1989 dollars. And $2.8 trillion in 1989 dollars would have been worth $2.053 trillion in 1981 dollars. So assuming these figures (which I think derive from the Congressional Budget Office) are expressed in raw numbers rather than inflation-adjusted numbers, the 1981-1989 debt variance, expressed in inflation-adjusted figures, while it did not increase by a triple, did increase by more than double, specifically, by a multiplier of 2.2811... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #93 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. So by how much did it increase in inflation adjusted dollars? Only by a factor of 2.3 Fiscal responsibility GOP style.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNational debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure As kallend and lucky have both said - 1981 dollars are not the same as 1989 dollars. So by how much did it increase in inflation adjusted dollars? In 2010 dollars, 2.4T over 8 years. QuoteOnly by a factor of 2.3 Actually, it only doubled - 2.4T to 4.8T in 2010 dollars. QuoteFiscal responsibility GOP style. Honesty, kallend/liberal style.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #95 July 29, 2010 Using 2010 dollars to express the multiplier factor of the inflation-adjusted increase in debt from 1981 to 1989 is a misleading application of statistical analysis, because as inflation increases over time, using later and later years' "dollars" keeps resulting in a smaller and smaller multiplier. This is a prime example of the old adage about "lies, damned lies and statistics", because one can selectively spin the value of a subject matter (ie., a raw data set) by selectively choosing the method of statistically analyzing it: same raw data; different statistical methods; different results. That's why, for example, the multiplier when expressed in 1981 dollars is 2.28111... , but when expressed in 1989 dollars, the multiplier has already begun to creep down to 2.280130. And thus, naturally, when expressed in 2010 dollars, the multiplier - for the same raw data - is even lower. So if you made the same argument, say, 10 years from now, using 2020 dollars, you'd probably (assuming net inflation between 2010 and 2020) be able to derive an even lower multiplier - again for the very same raw data. Thus, the most intellectually accurate way of expressing the increase in debt from 1981 to 1989 would be to gauge the real-world effect that increase had on the nation's economy as it once existed in 1981. And the best way of doing that - which is to say, the way that best reflects actual reality and best minimizes "spin" - is by using a multiplier derived from 1981 dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #96 July 29, 2010 In 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 July 29, 2010 QuoteIn 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, but what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. This is as bad as Mike taking the nominal GDP numbers to dumb down GWB's wonderful success as president. Mike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 July 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, The numbers are from treasurydirect - if I recall, you used the same site upthread, so you're saying your numbers are equally inaccurate. Regardless, prove them wrong. Quotebut what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. How about saying that the historical numbers are all "1980 dollars"? Where's that on the dishonesty scale? However, you *are* correct in that it should be the end of FY 88 for the end point. I can only claim 'kallend dating' as an excuse, what with Bush being responsible for the March 2001 recession. Anyway...corrected numbers (1981 $) 9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000 9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344 Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%) QuoteThis is as bad as Mike taking the nominal GDP numbers to dumb down GWB's wonderful success as president. That would be the same nominal GDP that you stated in the original post, before dishonestly changing it to real GDP while I was in the midst of answering it, yes? I mean, since we're talking about honesty, let's be honest, right? QuoteMike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. And perhaps if you were using the degree you went to college for, you'd understand honesty, period. But probably not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 July 29, 2010 Quote Mike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty. Given the number of PhD's that lie with statistics, this is one of the dumber things you've said this week. Did your degree teach you to make up facts? How is that honest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #100 July 29, 2010 Quote Quote Quote In 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls): FY 1981: 997,855,000,000 FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272 Increase: 1,005,945,038,272 NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase) The numbers aren't accurate, The numbers are from treasurydirect - if I recall, you used the same site upthread, so you're saying your numbers are equally inaccurate. Regardless, prove them wrong. Quote but what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. How about saying that the historical numbers are all "1980 dollars"? Where's that on the dishonesty scale? However, you *are* correct in that it should be the end of FY 88 for the end point. I can only claim 'kallend dating' as an excuse, what with Bush being responsible for the March 2001 recession. t. Lucky is correct . Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
