16 Feb 2014 1:24 pm
Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:50 pm » wrote:
Not in the post that I responded to, you didn't. You used his third fiscal year to define what he "turned over" to Reagan. That was dishonest on two counts but, as I said, better then clem and crimson.
Here, since you're busy waiting until I get to your attempt at a rebuttal and shred it, refute these numbers (since they refute your thesis) - or mock them without providing alternative numbers - whatever it is you feel you need to do:
title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20Since%20The%20Founding&units=p&size=l&year=1970_2000&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_33.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38.81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05_63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_56.56
Prepare to have your *** kicked by your own numbers again.
1977 4.6
1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%