The down turn started in the Fall of 05/Spring 06

Listen try something else..... Like getting a life!!!!!!

Mr. McEnery, I already answered your first question here... http://bristol-warren.patch.com/blog_posts/ask-a-conservative-is-reagan-a-conservative

Bush (over his 8 years) created 3.968 million jobs. That includes the last 18 months of the dot com burst and the first year(ish) of the Housing burst. To contrast with Obama, so far we've lost 4.778 million jobs over his first 3+ years. Keep in mind that Bush had a Democrat Senate and House his last two years and Obama has had a GOP House his last year and a half... though judging from those first two years, he should consider himself lucky.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Wages under Reagan increased from $8,024(in 1981) to $12,096 (1989, when Bush 41 raised the taxes) for the lowest 20%... that is an increase of 50%. The next highest received an increase of 55% over that same period, the middle (or third highest), received an increase of 55%, the fourth highest received an increase of 60%, and the richest had an increase of 66%.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html (Table H-1 - All races)

That doesn't sound stagnant to me.

Oh, those wages were in constant 2009 dollars.

Bryan

I'd be intrigued to know what numbers and statistics you used to come up with those totals, as your Bureau of Labor Statistics link is invalid.

That must have been because I changed the output values so that it pulls numbers from 2001 to present.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I would say nothing really. It was more what they did to keep it going.

The bubble and burst plus the jobs loss associated with it can be traced back to Barney Frank and his CRA adjustment back in '93, but once it burst there was little anyone could have done to stop that initial job loss. Why it lasted 4 years (really longer if 16k new jobs isn't your definition of "recovery", it isn't mine) is something you can attribute to them however.

They passed a firestorm of new regulations which severely hampered businesses ability to recover on their own, they also continuously threatened to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts which has caused many companies still, to horde money to wait and see what will happen instead of spend it and possibly get shut down by a huge tax increase. On top of that, they spent $2 trillion... not on you or I, but to businesses (banks specifically) that took advantage of the aforementioned CRA adjustment for a quick buck.

Here's a good article in the Economist that goes over their biggest regulatory misstep. http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

Really? 50-60% growth in only 8 years is stagnant to you? What wouldn't you consider stagnant?

I believe they were stagnant as a % of GDP. What did the Democrats do after 2006 that caused the Financial meltdown after 12 years of GOP controlling the House?

Mr. McEnery, I answered your first question already. Please reread my previous comment.

GDP under Reagan increased with a mean of about 6% once his policies took effect. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Can you provide a citation that shows that they were stagnant as a percentage of the GDP? I was unable to find anything about that on my own. Thanks.

Reagan raised taxes and dramatically raised spending while he was in office. Reagan benefited from Paul Volcker's strict fiscal policies which had brought inflation under control.

Obama was handed an economy that saw the Dow Jones crash dramatically from a high just over 14,165.02 in 2007 to 7,552.37 in October 2008 under Bush. Oil prices reached an all time record high while Bush was in office also - $147 a barrel in August 2008.

GDP in the 4th quarter 2008 (Bush) was down nearly 9%.

Presidents have little to do with these numbers and numbers can be made to show whatever someone wants to.

Downtown, don't just make things up.

Taxes under Reagan went from 70% to 28%. I provided the citation for that twice here and you can find it again here... http://bristol-warren.patch.com/blog_posts/ask-a-conservative-is-reagan-a-conservative

Your oil prices are also $50 off http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

The lowest the Dow got in 2008 was around 13.5k. It did, however, drop to around 6.5k in 2010. http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

If you have to make things up in order to prove a point... do some soul searching first.

Oops, missed one. GDP fell nearly 9% in 2009, not 2008.

And the citation for that (sorry)... http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

I would agree but if raising taxes would result in a loss of revenue for the government, which this surely would, why raise taxes? I agree that spending is a bigger problem than taxes though. The problem with Congress is that even we do get an increase in revenue (however the means) they will still raise spending $3 for every $1 we bring in. Like you said, we really do need a real conservative congress.

Joe,
While I for one do not believe tax cuts are the answer, I must point out that they are wholly embraced by the so-called fiscally conservative hard right of the GOP.

Tax cuts are supposed to stimulate an economy. That was Reagan's idea and it didn't work then, and it hasn't worked now. (Please remember that most rightwingers hold up RR as the post child for fiscal responsibility) Both sides of the isle have been spending like drunken sailors on leave. But only the right wants to further diminish our incoming taxes revenues, and then only to top tier taxpayers.

Reaganomics didn't work in the 80's and it won't work now. We need a 20% across the board spending cut, and a rollback of all tax cuts to pre-1980 levels. comoonly called "Austerity Measures". Pull the band-aid off quick.

Excellent points, Still Hope. Like I wrote in the blog, income taxes are just a portion of it. You can have taxes at the perfect level (Let's say it isn't 28% but 25 or even 32%)... if a significant portion of your economy collapses, which in this case was the housing market, how perfect your taxes, capital gains or income, aren't going to matter.

I also agree with you on the regulations, regulations do effect businesses as much as taxes do. Some regulations make sense... don't dump those toxic chemicals in the ocean... some are just foolish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1YQDjpuY_U

I think GWB is about to lose his ranking as the worst President. I never voted for him or ever cared about him, but if we are stilll hanging around Afghanistan looking for WMD's, the fault is clearly not George's. BHO doesn't know what to do next. The current turmoil in the Mideast? Who lit that fire?

Yeah, I remember Clinton, voted for him twice when I was in Democrat mode. I also remember the dot-com bubble burst. But that aside, if he could run for president today, he probably would get re-elected... and I think we would be in safe hands.

@Paul Yeah I remember Clinton's retro-active largest tax increase in history at the time that bankrupted a lot of people and made dead people pay taxes. Yeah he's a real hero.

I remember when Clinton signed away gay rights...twice.

Paul, were you around when Jimmy Carter was president? The interest rates were so high I was able get a CD at 15% interest, home loans were in excess of that. Unemployment was worse than it is today. President Johnson(LBJ, a Dim) esclated the Vietiam War to where the country rebelled and he would not run for relection. These are just a couple of examples, Paul you should really research history a little better before you make a public statement. By the way Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress to the reforms (money in the bank) he signed.

Thanks, Nurburg. The purpose of the blog isn't to debate with people, though I do end up doing that sometimes because I can't help myself, it's just to explain why Conservatives like me have the positions we do. To do that, you have to get into the nitty gritty and leave out the spin from the left or right.

For instance, in this blog I explain why we support lower income taxes. It isn't "Romney Hood", it's that since most of the jobs in the US are provided for by small businesses who file their taxes as the individual rate, that raising that rate would directly effect those employed... everything from people getting laid off to people just not getting the raise they expected.

Not everyone is going to agree with that, or they may have a logical reason for believing something else would happen... but at least they know why we want to keep those tax cuts and not the "they don't care about poor people" BS that is often attributed to us as our motivation.

Even better is when someone comes here and posts different citations, numbers, points out a mistake, brings up different parts of an issue, or tertiary effects (like Still Hope did above) that make me research more and re-evaluate my position on the issue again.

I'm one of those weirdos that has pretty strong beliefs but actively seek out differing opinions. It's a win-win situation: Either you bolster your existing opinions or you find you need to reevaluate them. I recall that President Lincoln's cabinet was composed mostly of people who disagreed with him (which I always thought was pretty amazing): http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=9&subjectID=2 I can spend all day in a progressive forum (whether online or among my peers) and it's really a waste of time because we all know where we stand. In my experience it's when you keep an open mind and try to look at the issue from the other side that real progress gets made.

But these discussions tend to get away from the principles and turn into straw man arguments. I respond to data and well formed arguments. I actually heard someone refer to the president as "Obama Bin Laden" the other week and realized there's probably a lot more of that going around than I'd like to believe haha.

Amy,
What's your point? That people on assistance should not be registered to vote? Please explain.

People on assistance shouldnt need more money spent on them to get them to the polls. The people initiating this are padding one side of the ticket, the 'D' side and everyone knows this. It is gerrymandering, essentially.
-
If you want to spend money on "people on assistance" (many of whom are worthy of that help from society), cull the ranks of the cheats, double dippers, and such. Start with the millions of new SSDI club members who are being paid by us for "stress" while they go right back to work "under the table". I have heard of many and know of one directly. I also KNOW that there is an issue with people getting assistance in more than one state, using address scams, address sharing and the like PLUS working under the table. If you want to defend the legitimate "people on assistance" then have a little respect for those who are WORKING and PAYING for it, by comprehensively rooting out the fraud. Plus it would be better for the self esteem of recipients, when it is a stellar, clean, needs-based program. No one will qiestion the "people on assistance" when the reputation of those programs is a clean one.

No I saw it on the news this morning. It's also in the Boston Globe today.

Janet, Thanks for the video link. Very informative.

http://bristol-warren.patch.com/blog_posts/ask-a-conservative-is-reagan-a-conservative

GWB was mixed really depending on the issue, in my opinion. In his first six years, he and the GOP house definitely spent like liberals do... or I should say almost spent like liberals do because once the liberals did take over the house and senate, spending increased by about three times (going from memory, I'll correct it tomorrow if after looking it up I see that I'm wrong).

As far as your racist BS, that's just what it is, BS. If you want an answer to a specific policy or issue question, then just ask it.

Me discriminating? You probably registered at the DMV like most other people. So drop the whining over your very long hours. My question remains, Why do you have a problem with it? Is it wrong to make it easier for Low-income and the poor to register to vote? Traditionally, these people have very low voter turn out, so why not make it easier? Or is it really that you don't want "those" kinds of people voting?

By the way, this entire program was part of a lawsuit settlement.

Amy, good points, don't waste to much time on J. Lane McMahon, he will not understand your reasoning. I do belive that liberlisim is a mental disorder.

Please point to where MLK said he was a Republican. I'm sure he has conservative ideas. So do I. DADT and DOMA was a compromise with the Rep house and he was wrong to sign them. Not sure how I mixed political philosophies with party. I specifically said the parties changed big time after the Civil Rights Act. It was Barry Goldwater, Conservative and Republican, who ran for President against the Civil Rights Act based on states rights hence the Lee Atwater quote. It was Reagan who said he was a Goldwater Republican. It was Reagan who was against the Civil Rights Act before it was a political liability.

We don't have a conservative/liberal two-party system. We have a conservative/right-of-center two-party system.

"You voted Democrat? So you're a liberal!" not necessarily...
"You're a liberal? So you must be a Democrat!" ugh...
"You support small government? So you must be a (capital R) Republican!" Make the hurting STOP!

Absolutely right, Nurburg. There are some Republicans in the Northeast that are far more liberal than some Democrats in say, Texas, for example.

DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to regulate marriage. My opinion on it is here... http://bristol-warren.patch.com/blog_posts/ask-a-conservative-social-issues

Bryan, you might find this interesting (first-past-the-post and why it inevitably leads to a two-party system... explained using the animal kingdom haha): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo You quickly realize that hand in each puppet belongs to the same person, so to speak.

I've never felt that either party really represented my position (let alone the attitude of the nation's voters in general). I wish more people took a look at this.

I like your comments on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage (I'm completely in favor for it, but we're a nation built on laws and I just think it needs to be implemented the right way). I think it's just a natural progression of women's rights and civil rights legislation in general. I don't know if this can also be included under the 14th and 15th amendments... I really need to sink my teeth into a good constitutional law book. It's a complex issue (in the context of the law are there ever any simple issues? haha)

The recent chick-fil-a boycott in Chicago and Boston was particularly interesting because my first thought was "This is so obviously illegal it's absurd".

@Billy McEnery: You might find this link helpful in learning how the Democrats fought civil rights in the 1960s and smeared MLK. This same website has information concerning MLK being a Republican: http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Democrats%20Smeared%20MLK%20in%20the%201960%27s.pdf

@Billy McEnery: MLK Was A Republican, Affirmed by Niece Dr. Alveda C. King. Video link: http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/Videos
I don't see Sen. Byrd, not only a member of the KKK but the leader of his chapter and recruiter mentioned in your civil rights lesson. Do you really want to drag up ideology from 50 years ago and compare who did what during the civil rights movement to current 2012? I think the Democrats might lose in that comparison.

It seems to be up in the air. Here is a good article. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jan/17/raging-elephants/houston-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/ Like Axle said above his niece did say he was a Republican but then again his son and wife said he wasn't.

In my opinion, he seems to have stayed out of choosing a "side", which when you think about it makes a lot of sense. He was a man who fought so that we would not define each other by the color of our skin. I don't think it is a huge leap for him to not want to be lumped into another group and be defined by a political party. Perhaps he just did what was right because he felt it was the right thing to do and not because he had to line up his ideology with a certain party?

Asking whether Dr. King was a Republican or a Democrat is rather like asking the same thing of Jesus. He was a Christian preacher who discovered in Gandhi a method for applying the love ethic of Jesus to the need to eradicate social injustice. He spoke of the triple evils of racism, poverty and war and advocated that nonviolence be used even on the international level to solve conflicts. The better question is which of the two parties more closely reflects Dr. King's agenda and his vision of a World House in which we transcend tribe, race, class and nation and develop an all-embracing and unconditional love for all people.

I am a member of the Civil Rights Scholars team for The King Center/JPMorgan Chase project digitizing Dr. King's papers for web display.

Carol: That is never a question I would ask Jesus. MLK was a man and a sinner like the rest of us.

Deb: I wouldn't ask Jesus the question either. The point I was trying to make was that MLK's agenda was Jesus' agenda. Neither political party pursues an agenda based on the love ethic of Jesus -- not even close.

In his sermon on "The Drum Major Instinct" right before his death, MLK said how he'd want to be remembered at his funeral: "I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter."

As for the issue of tax cuts, MLK advocated a living wage for workers and a guaranteed annual income for everyone not able to work. On the other hand, he felt that war was taking resources needed for housing, education, and job creation. He also lamented that we'd become so materialistic. I doubt he would have supported tax cuts.

Carol: Who knows whether Dr. King would support tax cuts or not.

I would like to think if he were here today he would be flipping over tables while dressing-down the political class for how they twist so many of his and Jesus' messages to suit a particular agenda. I would like to believe he would be shouting "NOT ONE MORE DIME will go to this corrupt, unsustainable system of government". I would like to think he would be a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness by amassing an army of the wealthy to build great, affordable God-centered schools where all are welcome and government plays an insignificant role.

But maybe you're right. He would probably demand the wealthy pay more taxes and pray the government would adhere to what some might say is a misguided economic and social agenda.

Maxin, I wouldn't have much of a problem if they let the tax cuts expire and actually used the money to pay down the debt but do you believe for a second that is what the Obama administration and Democrats calling for tax increases will do with the additional revenue? Forget for a moment that increasing taxes in this economy will most likely lead to a decrease in revenue because it will further delay any economic recovery, the problem this nation is having is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The comparisons with Reagan are entirely appropriate, Reagan inherited a terrible economy but he had a vision and implemented it. Obama has no vision, no plan and all he does is look backwards and blame his predecessor and takes no responsibility for the debacle that happened under his watch. He's engaging in populist class warfare for no other reason that it's his only hope of being re elected. The atmosphere is poisonous and he's doubling down on bad ideas which will bring this country to the same place Greece isin today.

I also fail to see what MLK has to do with Bush Tax cuts, which to my opinion will slam an allready fragile economy if repealed in any way.

When we go broke (not too long from now) wefare will finally end, then a civil war will start because 1/3 of the people that live in this country get some type of public help. Many people will never work, they think jobs are for suckers. Welfare must stop to end the cycle of having kids, just to get more money.

paul, Carol B makes a good point. It isn't only the welfare recipient that taxpayers are supporting, it is a whole industry of support personnel.

I'm not against welfare, but it shouldn't be a career choice. Clinton's plan was good.

True, they don't care who picks up the tab. Stop & Shop loves them and still has the nerve to ask for another buck for charity, it's not even funny.

Stockman, like most people who don't understand the economy think that higher taxes equal higher revenue. That is not true. In the case of the Bush tax cuts... as I've already shown above. It would lead to a large decrease in tax revenue.

Reading your citation, and seeing what he said about Reagan makes me question the man's sanity. If you look at Tax Revenue, the Reagan tax cuts raised the amount of tax revenue by almost 100%. (See citation below).

The Bush tax cuts have increase our revenue over 30% since they've been enacted.... and that's with two recessions (the Dot com and then housing).

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The main recourse we have in curbing the deficit would be to cut spending and cut taxes, together.

Check this out on the Arnold, Missouri Patch:
Want to "Fix" America? Return to 1950s Era Tax Rates
http://arnold.patch.com/blog_posts/want-to-fix-america-return-to-1950s-era-tax-rates
Why is it every time we cut taxes for the top earners the economy tanks.

From the blog, "...there are other influences on our economy than taxes. For instance, the "dot com" boom of the 90s gave our country a lot of growth, while it's bursting lead to a recession. Same with the housing market bubble for this current downturn. That's why I believe the tax rates of the 80s accurately reflect what effect taxes have on our economy, since it was absent both a boom and a burst and just reflected a stable economy running on all cylinders."

Imagine if taxes were high during the housing bubble burst... it may have looked like 1929.

What you have to remember John is that not one single thing affects the economy, it is interlinked to many things in the economy. Like Bryan said the Dot Com collapse, In carters it was the oil embargo, in LBJ and Nixon it was the Vietnam War machine collapsed when it was de-funded to stop the war, In Hoover it was the Banks investments and corruption, In FDR it was the end of the WWII and millions of returning vets who would have normally been working in industry that women had been doing well they were at war. However the industry collapsed due to demand for enormous war machine no longer being needed.

To blame Bush tax cuts as a cause of the housing bubble is a fallacy. Regulation and laws forcing banks to continue LBJ's great society of everyone deserves to own a home caused it along with corruption. Like it or not some people will always scam the system and some people will never work enough to take advantage of what the system offers.

It is like the fallacy that everyone should get a college education; that is insane. Not everyone can do it period. Then of course there is the actual education you get. Let’s face it liberal arts are not a high paying nor plentiful need. That is true of many current courses.

In my opinion getting away from hands on training in high school has ruined many a kids’ life. We are not all high end white collar and many hands on pay better than so called high end.

Robert, thanks for linking to my post. To make my point further, I said the following today in response to someone questioning job creation after Kennedy's tax cuts,

[Second, manageable recessions are the goal. Even after Kennedy's reductions, the highest marginal rates never dropped below 70% until Reagan. They went from 70% to 28% by the end of his term.

Now instead of manageable recessions, we have serious crashes, with the last one almost collapsing the free market. As George W. Bush said in December of 2008, "I had to abandon free market principles to save the free market." That's an awfully big statement for an outgoing president.

So, is 91% too high? Maybe, but it's funny how everyone's "memory" of the "good ol' days" always point to the 50s. Maybe the magic number is 70%.

The bottom line is that it is when income inequality reaches untenable levels, like it does when the marginal rates are as low as they are, the economy for everyone is unstable and susceptible to crashes and bubble bursts. As my friend said above, "That type of concentration has always been dangerous. While higher tax rates on high levels of income are "fair" and "moral" in my view — that's really not the point. The point is that it has been, and still is, sound economic policy."]

All of these other issues like Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and China, and other extenuating circumstances are smokescreen, straw-man arguments.

How about this Naome, The government lives with the revenue they have and be fiscally responsible priod. I know that is a novel idea for the government but that id the average Citizen lives with, but I see no reason it cannot be applied.

The deficit was/is because of spending only, which is obvious because an increase in revenue actually reduces the revenue. Though I'm not sure why I'd have to explain that.

So if lower taxes end up with increased revenue, why would you raise them when trying to cut down the deficit?

I request you do an exercise. Open the constitution, look at all the things Congress has to pay for... then look at the 2009 budget and the 2009 tax revenue (keep in mind that this is not only our last budget passed but also in the middle of the worst of the recession).

The next step is to only add up the things in the budget that are in the Constitution. You'll find that we have about 200 billion dollars left over... yet, our deficit grew by a over a trillion.

Also, this current "down cycle" was because of INCREASED regulations, and has lasted longer than necessary because even more regulations were thrown on top of them.

The evidence is that we had what they call "virtual full employment", meaning that the only people unemployed at the time either chose to be unemployed (basically not wanting to work or only wanting to work in a certain field), or weren't looking for work.

If you want to see stability, we had 9/11 and Katrina and it still didn't dent our economy. It wasn't until the housing bust which was caused by increased regulations.

*Reduces the deficit... best typo yet.

Would just add to that Bryan that 5% unemployment is considered the standard for a healthy economy and the fudged number currently thrown around are no where nead the actual, which is estimated to be between 17 and 21 %. unemployed including all groups etc.

LOL i didnt even see that bryan, I read it as what you wanted to say lol.