Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 10 Mar 2014 1:09 pm » wrote:
Again, we're not talking about your respect for Reagan's economy, we're talking about your thesis which is a comparison of their individual economies. You're losing your initial argument, and you know this. So your response has been to attack the Reagan's policies, but doing so does not support your initial assertion that Carter's economy as better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gdp-adju ... ion-2011-5

**** and poppycock, son. Proving Carter sucks - which you AIN'T - would not even put a tiny DENT in my thesis, if I proved Reagan sucked worse. You've defeated my argument for one element of the economy, but as you know from a shameful career of desperately defending incompetent republicans, context matters. For starters, I have arguments that mitigate in favor of Carter even in the face of that inflation, which you cannot deny belongs to Nixon. The only setback I have suffered is that his economy was flat to slightly down - admittedly a SLIGHT potential handicap in a thread designed to crow about economic growth.

But wait, there's more. If Carter's economy, under a lesser man such as reagan, would have shrunk at a much faster rate, that is onl one of several ways my thesis is still in the running. I have not even had time to run the numbers on Reagan as regards inflation - and we STILL have to sort through the fact that Reagan had two enormous crutches that Carter did not have: Reagan was borrowing annually, on average, almost what Carter borrowed in four. When your guy is getting the proven benefit of Keynesian stimulus (He DID prove the benefit - right? Or did he fail?), the comparison is not apples to apples. You're gonna have to account for Reagan's inflation, Reagan's borrowing, and Reagan's raiding of Social Security in order to give me an apples to apples comparison before you get to go crowing, son.

I smell fear. You remind me of an elephant I raped, son - all spooky and fidgety, but knowing it was gonna happen and knowing it was gonna hurt.