11 Mar 2014 12:23 am
Your verbosity betrays your lack of evidence. I didn't say inflation under Reagan gets a bye. All I said was it was lower than GDP growth. Reagan's spending habits are not relevant to your OP. If you want to have that discussion we can do so, but you can't claim Carter's presidency produced a better economy than list the reasons why Carter's economy was worse. Do you not see anything wrong with that???Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote:
Utterly irrelevant. I see how you are when I get you on the run.
Carter's economy would not have to grow, if Reagans shrunk more. So right there, without any further arguments of context, is an example of how full of **** you are when you say that the inflation issue NECESSARILY ends the debate.
You want to sit here and pretend that Carter's inflation actually matters, but Reagan's borrowing just gets a bye, Reagan's massive pile of **** he left in order to produce his results just gets a bye?
So you completely get apples to apples - and insist on it - when you like them apples and doing so give you the opportunity to ask me how I like them apples. But when the apples make you panic, make you quiver - when the apples mitigate against YOUR guy, - then all of a sudden, "That stuff is just a bunch of crap. It don't matter." The only apples that count are the ones that down your guy."
On top of all that, pal, I already acknowledged very clearly that you have partially defeated my OP, and I have as a result clarified my thesis. Sometimes OPs are written in haste, and what one is looking to argue is not clearly enunciated. If all you wanted was to prove Carter's economy - after inflation - was stagnant, then you are the victor and may the force be with you. But there are other comparisons left to make, for ME - and I say your drug store cowboy cannot - ON BALANCE - stand up to my peanut farmer. Puddemup, puddemup.
