Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote: Ironic you'd want to "consider things in context" when your OP, of which you were so proud, did no such thing and instead used raw GDP numbers.

Carter was limited on how much he could borrow because of his stagflation. So in addition to your assertion being invalid because it's speculative, it's also invalid because it's unrealistic.

Oh, and on the topic of full time vs part time, you mean like this graph here where it shows Reagan's full time job growth more than doubles Carter's???



And the nice thing about Reagan was the jobs stayed and income grew. Not so much with Carter dude.

Your chart makes the affirmative claim that only 5.6 million jobs were created from 1978 to the present. Yet, you present other charts - as do I - crediting Reagan with 16 million jobs. That's nonsensical. Fun with numbers? I don't even know how to respond to something that makes no sense to me, and contradicts numbers that we both agree to.

Besides, if you look at how many of those jobs were as jail guards due to Reagan growing our prison population above that of every nation on earth, you will see that government spending accounted for an enormous part of Reagan's job growth:



Likewise, many of the jobs are making armaments - government jobs disguised as private sector because maga-corps are dipping their beaks. So much of Reagan's "success" is based on such "fun with numbers," made possible by Reagan's tripling of the national debt - selling the unborn into the very debt slavery that you complain about today.

When a guy is hiding his unemployment by refusing to count those not drawing benefits - Reagan was the first to pull that "ketchup is a vegetable" trick - and by jailing those who don't have jobs (creating government jobs for their guards), you pull a "double Reagan," as future mathematicians will eventually call the "fun with numbers" tricks used to justify Reaganomics.

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote:The sad thing for Carter is millions of baby boomers came of age during his presidency. Reagan got generation x, a much smaller generation, coming of age, and he still managed to get more people into the labor force than Carter. 'Splain that one Lucy.

Reagan's economy required two workers per family, creating a generation of latch key kids. Family income went up a smidge under Reagan, but work force participation by mothers with young children went through the roof - mostly reflecting one or more part time, low wage jobs per mom. Here, let me chart that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=carter+ ... 1024%3B581



Is that REALLY the "great" Reagan economy that you are willing to defend, son?