Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 21 Oct 2017 4:40 pm » wrote: Carter didn't inherit a "collapsing economy" as you claimed, troll.

Neither did reagan, dick sucker - I was mocking you, ya **** ape.

But don't take MY word for it, you queer - take YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Here's the source that YOU presented:


Your graph proves that the economy grew at about an average rate under Carter, notwithstanding the oil, hostage, and monetary crises he had to deal with - all of which were caused by the policies of past presidents.

More to the point, your graph proves that the economy was heading in an almost vertical growth trajectory when reagan took office, and then stayed the carter/volcker course.

Of course, you've already admitted that both Clinton and Johnson outperformed reagan on the economy - and I appreciate that. And you have CERTAINLY admitted - by skirt flapping away from my proofs - that carter was much better than reagan on creating jobs.

In all, it's fair to say that reagan and carter were about identical on the economy in general - nothing to write home about, but as good as or better than most. Neither was a super star, but neither was a nixon or a bush, either.

I'm glad we can finally agree, dick sucker.