Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 11 Mar 2014 12:23 am » wrote:
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???

Reagan's spending habits propped up a fake economy. Living on borrowed money is merely the ILLUSION of a "good" economy - not a genuinely good economy. You are defending the results of a big borrowing, big spending nanny government as a "good" economy. A genuinely good economy does not hinge on tripling the nation debt, son. And for you to pretend that his massive government spending was not stimulative and to ignore that it was based on borrowing and to say it has "nothing to do with the economy" - well, that's just silly, sir.

Carter's economy must be judged in the context of the three enormous challenges he inherited - challenges predicated on policies of previous democrat and republican administrations: a financial correction (currency inflation) caused by Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods and embracing of fiat currency (a continuation of LBJ's friendship with paper money); the energy crisis - engineered during Nixon/Ford and sprung on Carter (He punished the perps with a windfall profits tax, but that did not undo the shock to our economy); and a global recession.

You have already seen the jobs created during the Carter years - more per year than Reagan by over 25%, and a higher percentage of them full time. How do you justify just breezing past more than ten million jobs in 4 years - a better jobs record than any president past or present? Are jobs - like borrowing and spending - not "part of the economy?"