Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (257870)

8/9/2014 11:49:36 AM

From: koan

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542004

What you failed to mention.

Carter ran a 50 billion budget deficit.

Raygun ran a 250 billion dollar deficit. Five times what Carter ran. And he ran that 250 billion deficit all 8 years adding two trillion to the deficit. We had little deficit before Raygun.

So in effect Raygun ran a Keynesian government stimulus program, so of course there were more jobs.

<<I absolutely agree - but that doesn't mean you get to play with the numbers like Krugman does. Once again; if you care about the creation of jobs, you have to look at the trend during the Presidency. Carters trend after the first year are straight down until after he is out of office. Reagans trend after the first year is up - and remained strong.

Carter approval at end of his term - barely 30%
Reagans approval at the end of his terms - above 60%

How soon we forget.

<<

Again Sam, I don't disagree with much you say here. But that being said, Presidents don't get to pick the economy they inherit - they have to play the hand they are dealt. And, I've already acknowledged that Carter is not alone to blame for the inflation for the reason you gave. But my argument was meant to be strictly about the dishonesty of the Krugamn job creation argument. He was arguing that Carter created more jobs than Reagan - and that is just dishonest for the reasons I already gave. I'm not arguing for or against either President - I'm arguing about using stupid incorrect numbers.