can someone please explain this to me?

[joeprogressive]

There was an editorial that appeared in the Houston Chronicle this morning by Ed Feulner, the president of the Heritage Foundation. He was telling conservatives that they should follow Reagan's blueprint for economic policies.

He states that the avg GDP under Reagan was 3.2, unemployment decreased, inflation was held in check and interest rates fell. He also said Reagan trimmed federal spending. The question is if this occured, how was it then that Reagan piled on record deficits and exploded the debt to the tune of trillions of dollars? How can he say Reagan trimmed federal spending? Isn't military spending considered federal spending?

[liberal43110]

1. How can he say this? Lies and tax cuts

1) he omits the disgraceful tax cuts that added to the national debt

2) "trimmed spending" is a loaded phrase: much like the current Congress "trimmed spending" on social welfare programs, while increasing military spending and pork projects...which leads to a growing deficit, not a shrinking one

[joeprogressive]

2. he did mention the tax cuts

But I thought the repub philosophy was that tax cuts that lead to economic growth will bring surpluses. If there was growth during that time and more people were working, why were we running deficits? Oh yeah, had to fight the evil and declining Soviet Union in the cold war. What a load of crap that was.

[unblock]

4. they also never mention the tax HIKE

reagan sign the biggest tax hike in history, in 1982 i think, and that was one of the few things that kept his fiscal policy from being a complete disaster.

[unblock]

3. and interest rates and inflation fell because of carter's appointment

of paul volker as fed chairman. inflation was high because of the oil shocks under nixon and ford; carter had the poor timing to be president when this rippled through the economy. he did the best he could, by appointing volker to chair the fed.

volker stopped inflation by jacking up interest rates to the moon. so OF COURSE interest rates and inflation fell when reagan was president, but it had nothing to do with reagan. in fact, it was DESPITE reagan's inflationary fiscal policies, which, fortunately for him, were dwarfed by volker's HUGE anti-inflation monetary policy.

[Demit]

5. And I remember that, in '82 or '83, unemployment skyrocketed up to 10%

I remember a very large headline in a Philadelphia paper trumpeting that. So yeah, at some point later in his administration it probably did decrease, but not before it rose dramatically in his first term.

[Frustratedlady]

6. Did You Listen To Rove's Speech, Yesterday?

You'd think we were walking on streets of gold, as great as the economy is going. Unemployment down, employment up, new home sales up....same old, same old.

By now, I'd think THEY would even be tired of spouting such lies. I honestly tried two times to listen to the entire speech. I could only get past 10 minutes, and decided it was an insult to absorb any more of their garbage. Besides, he had that damned half grin on his face, as though he was thinking, "You sheep believing this diatribe?"

[FloridaPat]

7. Unemployed was way up under Reagan. A lot of people felt it

was the same as the depression - around 25%. As for interest rates falling - well first they went up to 23%. That allowed the credit card companies to go crying to congress about how the states were limiting their rates to 10%. So congress took over credit card rates and allowed them to raise it - to pretty much what ever they want. That law was extended right after the 2004 election, by the way. As for inflation, I don't remember. As usual under a repub president, my career was gone and I was learning a new one.

[Poppyseedman]

8. Here a chart that says the opposite

[A Simple Game]

10. That is a chart that fiscal conservatives need to see. n/t

[Poppyseedman]

11. It's from the Heritage Foundation!!!

They have seen it

[A Simple Game]

12. Then if my implied statement is true;

"That fiscal conservatives have not seen this chart." And I feel it is true.

And your statement is true; "It's from the Heritage Foundation." And I have no reason to doubt it is.

Then we must assume that the Heritage Foundation is not made up of fiscal conservatives. And I think they are in fact neocons.

[Orangepeel]

13. THAT chart is from the Heritage Foundation?!

Am I reading it wrong? Facts or not, why would the Heritage Foundation put out a chart that makes both the Carter and Clinton adminstrations looks so good and the Regan administration (in particular) look so bad?

[Poppyseedman]

14. Hum .......mm. How about the idea

If the Heritage foundation wants to be considered credible, one would think it's information would be need to accurate. Remember numbers don't lie. The spin may be based, but the figures must be accurate

[Orangepeel]

15. I never thought of the Heritage Foundation as credible

:shrug:

That's what shocks me. Based on what I know of the Heritage Foundation, I don't understand why they would create this chart and make it available. What's the ulterior motive?

[Poppyseedman]

16. Look at the chart again

It says "Federal Revenues Skyrocketed in the 90's"

That was during the Clinton tax hikes. Of course for the Heritage Foundation that would be a bad thing, they want smaller government which means smaller revenue.

There's your motive

[acmejack]

9. It's all they do well, LIE

If there is a Republican at the end of it you can be pretty sure the statement is skewed, shaded, slanted, out of context, misquoted, a half truth, or a flat out falsehood! I am trying to say they are a bunch of lying SOBs!