Are you the type of person who deals with reality and the facts or the type that makes up excuses?

Question

when the facts don't fall your way?

For example, cons think supply side economics leads to faster growth than keynesian economics. The facts show otherwise.

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

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 (40') 74.69%
2 FDR (32') 34.62%
3 LBJ (64') 21.81%
4 TRUMAN (48') 21.00%
5 JFK (60') 19.86%
6 FDR (36') 19.32%
7 CLINTON (96')17.87%
8 REAGAN (84') 15.98%
9 CARTER (76') 13.67%
10 CLINTON (92')13.53%
11 IKE (52') 13.45%
12 REAGAN (80') 12.63%
13 NIXON (68') 12.38%
14 IKE (56') 10.91%
15 FORD (72') 10.62%
16 BUSH JR (00')9.03%
17 BUSH SR (88')8.81%
18 TRUMAN (44') -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%

Answer 1

I prefer facts reason and truth even if that would go against my agenda

American conservatism has grown into a cult.Everyone is out to get them and everything that's not slanted to the far right is liberally biased.
Science,truth and facts are all less important than the ideology. Everyone who distracts from the Divine path becomes an enemy and part of the evil outside world.

The few conservatives who are smart and courageous enough to make up their own mind are immediately labeled as traitors or RINO's

It's good to see more and more Americans waking up and realizing they can't take conservatism serious anymore until it rids itself of this cultist spirit

Answer 2

I admire your efforts in digging up information, I get absorbed deep into that myself sometimes.

Heres the deal though travolta. Supply side economics doesnt show its benefits until several years after they are implemented usually 4-10 years. So it would be the successor that that would reap the benefits ( the better statistics in your presented case here ) of those implementations.

So it would be much more accurate to examine the next presidential term or even two after a policy was implemented.

Answer 3

GDP per capita ( a more relevant number) shows a little something different.

FDR 25.52 (41)
FDR 21.21 (37)
FDR 20.51 (45)
Reagan 11.96 (85)
LBJ 11.10 (67)
Truman 10.57 (53)
Nixon 9.98 (73)
Reagan 7.78 (89)
Ford 7.44 (77)
Clinton 6.71 (97)
Bush 6.02 (05)
Ike 6.00 (61)
Clinton 5.22 (01)
Ike 5.11 (57)
JFK 2.79 (63)
Carter 2.09 (81)
Bush 1.68 (93)
Truman -3.21(49)


but we already know you dont like THE WHOLE TRUTH

Ofcourse these numbers still dont prove anything but the fact that statistics lie and liers use statistics.

Answer 4

Amen to Vote USA.
Talk about trying to skew something! Both your math and Bush Economic Team math have some extraordinary magical powers about them. How about doing the up and down numbers? Talk about somebody needing to get the facts lined up!!

Answer 5

As a extreme-tech troubleshooter, I might desire to permit the info to steer me, as against me ultimate the info. i for my area do no longer care what the end result's as long because it incredibly is the certainty and not a fabrication.

Answer 6

lol "New Deal" economics?

A collapsed economy pulling itself out of the hole ISN'T supposed to represent the largest growth?

Suppose we have a major crash now. You don't think we would see ANOTHER MASSIVE 75% growth rate?

Yea, when you print up money and start blindly lending it out, you get growth.

Add to that, the WAR EFFORT in (FDR (40') 74.69%)