Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 1:19 pm » wrote: Lol...Reagan's job numbers in his second term were better than Carter's kiddo. So unless you have evidence that Carter's job numbers would have been the same in a potential second term you're just posturing and trying to fudge the data.

Link?

And be forewarned - I have the breakdown for Carter v Reagan as regards Full time v Part time - REAL jobs vs "ketchup is a vegetable" jobs.

That's the problem with your hero Ronnie. All of his numbers have asterisks next to them. None of the results you laud him for really belong to him. RIGHT NOW, today, on this board, there are people cussing the negro for Reagan's debts.

Yes, I can judge Reagan's economy IN CONTEXT. And carter's economy IN CONTEXT.

That is actually what any honest comparison strives to do - apples to apples, not apples to carburetors. When Reagan gets kudos for wild stimulus spending and tripling the national debt - kudos from people who are cursing obama for wild stimulus spending and barely even moving the national debt, relative to what Reagan did - then there is CLEARLY a context issue in the debate.

I doubt very seriously you are willing to cosign Obama's significantly more conservative approach to borrowing. Yet you are crediting Reagan's economic "accomplishments" without any consideration of what those "accomplishments" really were: Redistribution of wealth from the unborn to the born.

If Carter had tripled the debt to move enormous sums of money from one class to another, could he have counted that as part of HIS economy - with your support?