Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Democratic policies ALWAYS are bad for the economy and Hillary is a radical leftist

JFK was a supply sider (cut taxes and government spending, spurs growth, generates more tax revenue in end) which is now seen as conservative policy-Reagan was a supply sider). Since thgen, Democrats have moved more and more to socialism (huge government, less capitalism, more taxes, divide a small pi). Those policies are disastrous.

Jimmy Carter economy Democrat
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.


Reagan and the Economy

Ronald Reagan was U.S. President from January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989. He was the first conservative President in more than 50 years.  to combat the worst recession sincethe Great Depression.
. Reagan promised the "Reagan Revolution," which was based 
on reducing government spending, taxes and regulation. His philosophy was "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." 1980-1981 Recession 
Reagan inherited an economy mired in stagflation -- a combination of double-digit economic contraction with double-digit inflation. To combat recession, Reagan aggressively cut income taxes from 70% to 28% for the top income tax rate, and from 48% to 34% for the corporate tax rate. He also promised to reduce government spending and regulations, while reducing the money supply to combat inflationReaganomics
Reagan's economic policies are known as Reaganomics. Reagan based his policies on the theory of supply side economics, which states that tax cuts encourage economic expansion enough to eventually broadenthe tax base. In time, the increased revenue from a stronger economy offsets the initial revenue loss from the tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts worked because tax rates were so high in the early '80s that they were in the "Prohibitive 
Range," according to the Laffer Curve
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

Proponents of additional government spending (Democrats) try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.

.Bill Clinton 1989-

 By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn inNew York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years. Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.
Liberal Bill Clinton thought he could use government to make everyone a homeowner and so naturally this ended in disaster.
Clinton had some economic policies that Democrats now reject: free trade, welfare Reform, stable monetary policy and spending restraint, which at the time produced growth. Most of that was forced on him by Republican congress and he moved to the middle. 
George Bush and Obama
  Obama as senator and Democratic congress caused the disaster of 2007/2008.
A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) brief the media after a meeting on Capitol Hill
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.
Again, let's review:
-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone).Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.
-John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary...to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.
-No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn't go along with the left's Affirmative Action lending policies...all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late 1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.
-Democrats themselves are even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left's favorite blatantly partisan "fact-checkers," Snopes, admits (while pretending to 'set the record straight').
-Even The New York Times admitted that there is "little evidence" of any connection between the "Republican" deregulation measures Democrats blame, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.
But non-Fox media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Democrats excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.

Since then. Obama has given us RECORD POVERTY, DOUBLING ALL PREVIOUS ACCUMULATED DEBT to approx $20 TRILLION, record food stamps, huge # under and unemployed but not counted, middle class wage and wealth losses, 

The lie of the improving economy under Obama


http://economyincrisis.org/content/our-economy-is-not-improving   Wake Up! The American Economy is NOT Improving!

http://economyincrisis.org/content/is-americas-economy-really-improving  "The truth is that the United State’s economy is unstable and in dire conditions."


Forbes " By any standards he’s been a bad President–idle, muddled, contradictory and weak. His one major achievement, ObamaCare, is likely to prove costly and inefficient. He has neglected U.S. defense and allowed Vladimir Putinto strut around the world stage almost unopposed. Obama’s Administration is crowded with enemies of business. If it has an ideology, it’s watered-down socialism. Obama has done nothing positive for the economy, and many of his decisions have been discouraging and obstructive to private enterprise."


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigge
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/08/unemployment_line.jpg
Unemployed workers look for jobs
Unemployed workers look for jobs
In a scathing attack on what he calls the government’s “extremely misleading” unemployment statistics, Gallup Chairman and CEO Jim Clifton publicly affirmed today what many have known for a long time: The federal government’s economic statistics, including unemployment, are grossly and intentionally misstated for the purpose of making the economy appear better than it is.
“There’s no other way to say this,” Clifton writes on the Gallup website. “The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”
Decrying all the “celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6 percent,” as well as the “deafening” media cheerleading of the Obama administration, the chairman of one of the biggest and most respected names in polling says the government, media and wall street – all of them – are lying to the American public.
“The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market,” he says.
However, what “none of them will tell you,” Clifton adds, “is this,” citing several entire categories of the unemployed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics intentionally omits from its “official” unemployment stats:
If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job – if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks – the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. … Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. …
Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 – maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn – you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6 percent. …
Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: Those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find – in other words, you are severely underemployed – the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6 percent.
Such statistical games are nothing new. Right before Election Day 2012, the government’s official unemployment rate, after close to four years above 8 percent, surprised everyone by breaking through the psychological 8 percent floor with a September “jobless rate” of 7.8 percent. The news was hailed by the Obama administration and the media as proof the president’s controversial spending and regulatory policies were indeed working to heal a troubled economy.
High-profile skepticism was immediate. Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric, suggested fudged data: “Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch tweeted.
Real-estate billionaire Donald Trump agreed with Welch: “He’s 100 percent correct, in terms of his statement about jobs. And after the election they’ll do a big correction.”
Added Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone: “I give Jack a lot of credit for being there and standing out. It makes it easier for me because he and I share the same point of view. These numbers don’t square with what’s going on with the economy.”
The White House shot back at the skeptics, with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis protesting, “This is a methodology that’s been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we’re manipulating numbers.”
However, at the time, even the government’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics report admitted: “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” Even though these individuals “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months … they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.” In other words, the government openly admitted that 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as officially “unemployed.”
When factoring back in all the unemployed who haven’t shown up at a government employment office in the last four weeks, the underemployed, and the 92 million people who have dropped out of the labor force (the highest number since 1978), the real unemployment rate, according to non-government economic analysts, is typically two to three times the “official” rate.

Obama: economy is not improving. Your anti growth policies are dead wrong

The Economy Continues to Sputter: It’s a Mystery!
Posted: 04 Apr 2015 01:06 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)
It was a bad week for the economy. A mere 126,000 jobs were added in March, far below expectations, and average pay declined. One wonders how many of those jobs were part time. Further, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta cut its estimate of first quarter GDP growth to zero:
The U.S. economy isn’t off to a great start in 2015. It’s looking so rotten that the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta just cut its growth projection to zero for the first three months of the year.
That’s a big drop from the 1.9% growth forecast they started with in early February.
As I wrote here, economic growth has been consistently disappointing throughout the Obama years. The president’s budgets have repeatedly forecast growth in the range of 5% to 6%, yet actual growth has been so poor that the administration has tried to celebrate feeble 2% growth as a success.
Year after year, the economy fails to perform as expected. Year after, year, excuses are found. The Associated Press acknowledges that growth has been persistently inadequate:
Some of the first quarter’s slowdown is no doubt due to an especially harsh winter. Yet nearly six years into the recovery from the Great Recession, the economy’s muddled progress seems inescapable. A long-awaited breakout remains elusive, suggesting that the economy’s direction has never been quite as simple as some analysts, politicians and bar stool philosophers would have it.
The AP offers a number of explanations for the economy’s poor performance: weather, the strong dollar, fluctuations in the price of oil, a lack of wage growth–this is an effect, not a cause–and the robotization of the economy.
Perhaps when all such excuses have been tried and found wanting, reporters and pundits will be forced to admit that among all the vicissitudes of the last six years, the consistent element has been liberal policies. Those liberal policies–extravagant government spending, steadily mounting debt, endless regulations, cronyism and the suppression of innovation, promotion of expensive energy, war on cheap electricity, and all the rest–have condemned a generation of Americans to limited opportunities for employment, promotion and the acquisition of wealth.

The disappointing March jobs report showed the size of the labor force shrinking by 96,000.

“This report clearly shows that President Obama’s efforts have not done enough to grow our economy and create jobs fast enough,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a prepared statement.
Beyond Friday’s jobs number, a wide range of other indicators suggest growth nearly stopped in the first quarter of the year.
Manufacturing is declining, and consumers are not spending despite a huge cash infusion from cheap gas prices. The housing market remains relatively weak. And while the jobless rate is close to where it was before the financial crisis, middle class incomes are not rising, the size of the labor force remains near a 30-year low and few economists see prospects for much faster growth on the horizon.
“The economy right now is very much at risk,” said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at investment firm Sterne Agee. “We are in a soft patch unquestionably. The question is how much of a soft patch. We are slowly losing momentum, and I don’t think the rest of the year is going be anything to write home about.”

The future?

Are you happy with us running from al quida? Watching our embassy burn and do nothing? Record: poverty , national debt, annual deficits, food stamp recipients, tepid recovery, decimation of our military strength, Obamacare destroying our future, then elect Hillary because she is exactly the same radical, leftist, progressive ideologue as Obama.  http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/04/hillarys-mentor-radical-saul-alinsky.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment