Does reality have a liberal bias?

Question

Seems to me liberal Keynesian economics beats right-wing, tax cuts for the rich, voodoo economics, supply side economics ANYDAY.

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.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.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

SMC,

Read about Kennedy's New Frontier social programs. Google it. You'll find it. He was an obvious liberal. For your information, JFK never cut taxes. It was LBJ and the cut was so small it didn't even effect tax revenues. They never even dropped. On the other hand, Reagan's and Bush Jr's tax cuts were so huge, tax revenues took immediate drops right afterward.

Let me add, when Kennedy made that tax cut speech he made it in front of some right-wing economic club. Before he even started he made some statements noting that him being there was something like an atheist being at a church pulpit.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

Answer 1

Yeah, but reality is often extremely harsh and injust. Looks like a right-wing bias to me.

Answer 2

How can you argue with an economic logic that believes concentrating all the wealth to an elite group will eliminate poverty?
Why don't you get that. It's simple. Let me spell it out for you.

If the middle-class gives all it's money to the rich, the rich will keep a small percentage, say 20%, then create jobs where the middle class can go to work and earn back the 80% of the money.

Can't you plainly see how poverty is eliminated and the economy expands?

Of course the key to the success of supply side economics is to extend unlimited credit to the middle class. This way they can create huge debt while their wealth is depleted at the same time.

After all, what is important is that the number of millionaires increase, not the elimination of the poor. Can't you see the advantage of one person becoming wealthy while 100 people become poor or shackled with so much debt that they can never pay it off?

You are just so un-American. You should be ashamed.

Jesus wore a Rolex, you know.

Answer 3

GWB has put this country in the biggest deficit in world history. Anyone that says lowering taxes and spending billions a month on a war is gonna make our country prosper is obviously delusional. It might help the rich people in the short term ,but they think 2.60 a gallon for gas is cheap nowdays. They just dont care because their stocks are on the rise. When all this negligent spending catches up with the country all americans are gonna be affected. And the poor will take most of the impact once again because the price of everything is just gonna go up so the greedy rich ignorance can still make millions instead of a couple hundred thousand on others misery. Milk will be 6.00 a gallon, gas will be 8.00 a gallon and all the republicans will be crying because the democrats have to raise taxes to fix GWBs mess. But yet they still dont care how much money the bush administration has wasted as long as it doesnt help the poor people.

Answer 4

Reality has a conservative bias. The reality is that liberal government programs do not work. ie welfare, affirmative action, medicaid
And liberal government theory doesn't work in reality ie socialism, communism.

Increase in real GDP would be based on more factors than the president and his economic theory. The economic shift often takes a few years to have an impact.
Your first stats - FDR was president after the Great Depression. THE GREAT DEPRESSION, there was no where to go but up. JFK was in office between two wars and at the end of a recession cycle, he had a few good ideas regarding some limited federal programs and pushed for soem tax cuts - most of which were enacted after his death. Clinton saw the technology Boom that accounted for most of the increase. When Ronald Reagan entered office, the American economy faced the highest rate of inflation since 1947, and this was considered the nation's principal economic problem President Reagan's tenure marked a time of economic prosperity for most Americans in the United States. Tax rates were lowered significantly under Reagan, with the top personal tax bracket dropping from 70% to 28% in 7 years, and GDP growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession. Unemployment peaked at over 11 percent in 1982, then dropped steadily, plus inflation significantly decreased. During Reagan's eight years in office, the economy grew at a robust annual rate of 3.8% per year. He appointed the Greenspan Commission, which resolved the solvency crisis through reform, including accelerating previously-enacted increases in the payroll tax. Although he achieved a marginal reduction in the rate of expansion of government spending, his overall fiscal policy was expansionary.

Number two is pretty self explanitory and would not be proud that taxes where so high under democrats....that doesn;t solve problems or signify economic strength. It choked our economy after the New Deal. Who wants a 50% raise in tax revenue? That mean we americans have to pay way mreo taxes.

Also note that the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP has fallen to 2.6% compared to over 30% in 1943 under FDR. You cannot look at numbers alone. Yes the budget deficit has grown, but although the number is larger it represents a smaller portion. You need the whole fact, not part of it. Econmic priciples are always measured relative to other functions.

Answer 5

In this country it does. The press will make sure of that. What is it, repeat a lie often enough... BTW, how long does it take an economic policy to take effect? And do presidents really have that much power to change an economy. I can see where tax policy could have a dramatic effect. But change an entire economy? Give the American people a little credit.

Answer 6

You can't pick just include the examples that support your arguement and ignore the ones that don't.

Are you saying Kennedy had a liberal tax policy?

Where the Hell is Carter?
_________________________________________
So - you responded to the Kennedy question, but still where are the figures for Carter? New words had to be invented to describe the damage his policies did to this country's economy.

Answer 7

Ah, but all good Republicans will explain to you that growth under Democrats is just earlier Republican policies "kicking-in", and failure under Republicans is "carry-over" from former Democratic policies.

Generally speaking, Republicans do like to cut taxes and Democrats do like to raise them. So vote Democrat and get a good accountant! At least Democrats just want your money!

Answer 8

Cons only believe in bias. Reality is An Inconvenient Truth.

Answer 9

Being a bit selective aren't you. Maybe you are too young to remember the misery index under Jimmy Carter.

Answer 10

Reality always has a liberal bias. It usually takes conservatives decades to catch up. Conservatives live in some illusory world of yesteryear.