Are conservatives aware that liberal economic policies are superior to conservative policies?

Question

Keynesian economics is in fact superior to tax cuts for the rich, cut programs for the poor, trickle down, "voodoo", Reaganomics.

And I got the stats to back this up.

1) Here are the percent increase in real GDP for various presidents:

FDR 177.51% (from 32' to 45')
FDR 88.14% (from 32' to 41', without WWII)
KEN/LBJ 46.00%
CLINTON 33.81%
REAGAN 30.63%
BUSH JR 16.55% (from 00' to 06')

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

2) Here is the percent increase in inflation adjusted tax revenues:

FDR N/A
CLINTON 57.91%
KEN/LBJ 37.63%
REAGAN 20.16%
BUSH JR 4.44% (assuming predictions up to 2008 hold)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls

3) Here is the percentage point change in poverty for various presidents:

FDR N/A
KEN/LBJ -9.40
CLINTON -3.50
REAGAN +0.00
BUSH SR +1.80 (88' to 92')
BUSH JR +1.30 (00' to 05')

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

4) Here is the change in inflation adjusted median wage in net dollars and percent:

NET DOLLARS

FDR N/A
JFK/LBJ N/A
CLINTON +5,825
REAGAN +3,429
BUSH JR -1,273 (00' to 05')
BUSH SR -1,394 (88' to 92')

PERCENT CHANGE

FDR N/A
JFK/LBJ N/A
CLINTON +13.94%
REAGAN +8.62%
BUSH JR -2.67% (00' to 05')
BUSH SR -3.23% (88' to 92')

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

5) Here are the jobs created in percent change and net millions:

PERCENT CHANGE

FDR 95.69% (32' to 45', NYT: DERIVED FROM AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF +5.3%)
FDR 40.04% (39' to 45', no pre-39'gov data found yet)
JFK/LBJ 29.35%
Clinton 20.73%
Reagan 17.69%
Carter 12.81% (76' to 80')
Bush Sr 2.42% (88' to 92')
Bush Jr 1.55% (00' to 06')

NET MILLIONS

Clinton 22.746
FDR 18.310 (32' to 45', NYT)
JFK/LBJ 15.755
Reagan 16.102
FDR 11.980 (39' to 45', no pre-39' gov data found yet)
Carter 10.339 (76' to 80')
Bush Sr 2.592 (88' to 92')
Bush Jr 2.059 (00' to 06')

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001
Go to "More Formatting Options" and then select "Table Format", *"Original Data Value", "Specify year range", and "Select one time period: January"
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif

6) Here is the change in inflation adjusted national debt in net trillions and percent change:

IN AUGUST 2006 TRILLION DOLLARS

KEN/LBJ $0.071
FDR $0.387 (32' to 41' without WWII)
CLINTON $0.796
BUSH SR $1.436 (88' to 92')
BUSH JR $1.813 (00' to 06')
REAGAN $2.231
FDR $2.622 (32' to 45' with WWII included)

PERCENT CHANGE

KEN/LBJ 3.56%
CLINTON 13.57%
BUSH JR 27.21% (00' to 06')
BUSH SR 32.42% (88' to 92')
REAGAN 101.53%
FDR 132.45% (32' to 41' without WWII)
FDR 897.43% (32' to 45' with WWII included)

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp

To the person who said my info is flawed because I included or didn't include certain presidents.

First of all, my post would have been even longer if I did.

Second of all, the debate is over Keynesian economics versus supply side economics. The strongest advocates and executioners of Keynesian economics was FDR, JFK, and LBJ, and to a lesser extent Clinton.

Reagan and Bush Jr are the strongest advocates of supply side economics. I did not include Ike, because the theory and practice of supply side economics started with Reagan, not Ike. Ike was actually pretty moderate. I got some pretty liberal quotes from him.

Answer 1

Never try to confuse the reds with facts. Hey, they just can't handle it. I do agree with you though as while I am not backed up with numbers, I have lived it, at least every president since Nixon. I think you may be wrong about it starting with Reagan, Nixon made two moves to enrich the rich, he took America off of the silver standard, and allowed the dollar to float. This in effect devalued the dollar. Hurting those that didn't have very many of them and he allowed for private ownership of gold which, in effect prevented the rich from reinvesting money into the economy, we still live with that one today.

Answer 2

It's nice how you cherry pick your information. I especially like how you didn't talk about inflation with Jimmy Carter. Where are Nixon's numbers? Where are Eisenhower's numbers? Where are Ford's numbers? Where are Coolidge's numbers. If you really knew anything about economics than you would know that the president does not control the economy. I'm also sick of this tax cuts for the rich crap that you libs keep pulling. When are you going to realize that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!!!!!!! We don't want to fund your stupid social programs. These social programs are not the government's responsibility. If you want to live in a high tax system, please move to Europe where you will be happy with all your other socialist buddies.

Answer 3

You can get statistics from seemingly reliable sources to "prove" whatever you want to believe. The libs will make you believe what they want you to believe (not me). Re: Dan Rather had "documents" when he published his lies. They were faked, but even after they were outed, it was two weeks before he, and the liberal media, would let go. Then, he was fired by the same people who had insisted his lies were true.

You want statistics? Try the links below, and read the opinions of a recognized expert on global warming. Dispel a liberal horror story..

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Consensus
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm
http://www.lomborg.com/
=

Answer 4

The missing factor in your analysis is TIME. Your info assumes the results during each administration were due to the economics of that administration, and this is inherently fallacious.

Nothing happens overnight.

Answer 5

No. Your information has a flaw because President James Earl Carter was not mentioned. Also, you forgot to mention IKE.

Answer 6

They are not aware, and probably will never get it. Cool data, I'm looking forward to some liberal economics in 08.

Answer 7

Take a basic Econ 101 course.

You have been a good little leftist sheeple
in repeating propaganda to support what you want to believe not what actually is occurring.
=
Econ for citizens:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/citizen.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/citizen2.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/citizen3.html

==========================
Try reading this Econ professor for factual information:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

==============================

Answer 8

only in bizarro world.

Answer 9

That's a joke right?

Answer 10

a conservative: NO, i dont beleive you. leave me alone. I have to go watch fox news and rub myself