Why do cons keep repeating the supply side economics works myth?

Question

Instead of just being like a con and saying supply side economics works better then keynesian economics, and then letting you do the homework, I'm going to spell it out for you all.

HERE IS ACTUAL DATA THAT YOU CAN SEE AND (((VERIFY))) FOR YOURSELF:

HERE'S WHAT I DID:
I got the real GDP stats from the Bureau of Economic Analyses. I took the percent increase over 4 year intervals. I then ranked them from best to worst. Out of (((18))) 4 year intervals, the supply siders Reagan and Bush Jr ranked 8th, 12th, and 16th.

1 FDR (44') 74.69%
2 FDR (36') 34.62%
3 LBJ (68') 21.81%
4 TRUMAN (52') 21.00%
5 JFK (64') 19.86%
6 FDR (40') 19.32%
7 CLINTON (00') 17.87%
8 REAGAN (88') 15.98%
9 CARTER (80') 13.67%
10 CLINTON (96')13.53%
11 IKE(56') 13.45%
12 REAGAN (84') 12.63%
13 NIXON (72') 12.38%
14 IKE (60') 10.91%
15 FORD (76') 10.62%
16 BUSH JR (04')9.03%
17 BUSH SR (92')8.81%
18 TRUMAN (48') -9.04%

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


EXAMPLE CALCULATION

1996, 8,328.90 inflation adjusted billions of dollars
2000, 9,817.00 inflation adjusted billions of dollars

PERCENT CHANGE = (9817.0/8328.9 - 1.0)*100.0 = 17.87%

INTERESTED IN PERCENT CHANGE OVER 8 YEAR TERMS?

HERE YOU GO:

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)
JFK/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 447.54% (40' to 44', only data available)
CLINTON 57.91%
JFK/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
JFK/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:

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')

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')

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

JFK/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

JFK/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.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp

Answer 1

"You know, you're in more dire need of a ******* than any white man in history."

Answer 2

The US has created more wealth since the early 1980's than any other period. Common trends during this time period include lower tax rates and deregulation.

You pretending that all Democrats subscribe to Keynesian economics and all Republicans are Supply-Siders is ridiculous.

And your "trump card" of Bill Clinton is ruined by the fact that he was more fiscally Conservative and Supply-Side oriented than half of the Republicans listed.

If you want to make it a Democrat vs Republican thing, fine. But your support of John Keynes over Milton Friedman perfectly demonstrates your economic illiteracy.

Thanks for playing.

Answer 3

The data you are using isn't taking in to account the effects of the times that are being shown. (IE: War, The great depression, Etc.) Or that the actions of "Today" don't take effect "Today", but somewhere down the time-line a ways.

The "Boom" times in Clinton's terms, for example, were not due to His "Great policies", but due to the effects of Reagan's "supply side economics " policies.

Any time you make it easier for those with the capital to invest, spend, or grow to do so.....You gain economic growth/prosperity/revenue.

Investment = Jobs...Jobs = Money to spend...Money to spend = Economic growth...Economic Growth = Prosperity....Prosperity =Tax Revenue.

Why is this so hard of a chain of cause/effect to follow?

Why would giving those with the capitol to effect change (Real change), incentives to do so...be a bad thing?

(Simple example)
You give a person of modest means a tax break. With this tax break, they have 5% more of their income each month (Let's say $1000 annually). With this they can buy something extra with their money, but it's "over all" effect will be minimal.

Now You give a person/company of some means the same 5% break, and now they can afford to build that new plant, shopping center, hospital, Etc. and the Economic benefit helps THOUSANDS of people, with jobs, product demand, and the tax revenue generated by all of the activity involved in these actions...for years and years to come.

Seems like a no-brainier to me.....but that's just me!

T.S.

Answer 4

I didn't read your data, but it's observable which decades you're richest in. There are Republicans who also belive in American Economics, and not this "Free Trade" religion. Eisenhower, who created many of our highways is a great example of someone who remained conservative, but didn't fall for supply side bs.

Answer 5

Well done, it is a myth that Republicans are fiscally better for America, a BIG FAT LIE, and, your data supports this well.

Answer 6

They keep repeating it because it works. So many Americans are too lazy to check facts.

Answer 7

I usually do not read long questions because they are normally not factual. But I really enjoyed reading this. Thanks for the info!

Answer 8

Wow, you must have NO home life