Liberal Forum

Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Let's see what Forbes has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/

Reagan was a disaster in so many ways.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2014 2:58 am » wrote:Reagan was a disaster in so many ways.

He really was - and all Clem and Goofy and Nighthawk that entire ignorant lot can do about these FACTS is rant and rave and sling logical fallacies. They will HATE seeing their false narrative taken apart by the actual mathematical reality. But math is not LIKE the conservative mainstream media. It's not political. It's not partisan.

AND IT'S NOT ON THEIR SIDE.

BUT THERE IS MORE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reagan grew the debt by ALMOST 7 TIMES what Carter grew it by.

Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually REDUCED the debt as a portion of the GDP (due to how much it grew by under his hand, with a democrat congress).

Reagan added 1.873 TRILLIONS to the national debt, which GREW our national debt, as a function of GDP, for the first time since WW!! - TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT as measured in dollars (does not account for inflation), and grew it by a whopping 23.5% as a function of GDP (ACCOUNTS FOR INFLATION)!

In summary, Reagan oversaw a stagnant economy (at least, as measured against Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's), AND he added to our national debt.

The conservatives in the mainstream media and on this board can spin and spin, but they cannot make these numbers go away.

But regan gave us the war on drugs....and all the good that came with it.
carter smoked weed with willie nelson in the white house.


think of the millions of scum that regans drug policies have gotten off the street and into the (for profit) penal system

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy much better than Reagan

Hilarious that the psychotic is standing by this stunningly stupid claim.

But he must have an absolutely impeccable source, having rejected every one of mine!

about.com



Let's see more of the wisdom and subject matter carried by his source. CP would never, EVER cite a questionable source!

Cherries, Washington's Farewell and Other President's Day Facts

Suggy? Bop Bop?? What Kids Call Grandparents

Easy DIY: Soothing Bath Salts

How to Design a Gallery Wall

10 Perennials That Thrive in Shade

Color 101: Using Grey Tones in Decor

10 Quick Last-Minute Dinner Ideas

How to Make Red Velvet Crispy Treats
By Elizabeth LaBau
Candy Expert
Red Velvet Crispy Treats are a decadent twist on classic marshmallow rice bars, flavored like red velvet cake batter!

Wow, they have a candy "expert!"

And an expert on grandfathers!

Then they must be experts on Economics and history, too!

I love psychotic moonbat humor!

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 3:05 am » wrote: He really was - and all Clem and Goofy and Nighthawk that entire ignorant lot can do about these FACTS is rant and rave and sling logical fallacies. They will HATE seeing their false narrative taken apart by the actual mathematical reality. But math is not LIKE the conservative mainstream media. It's not political. It's not partisan.

AND IT'S NOT ON THEIR SIDE.

This is exactly why I use the term "moonbat."

You're not wrong.

You're stark raving mad.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20Since%20The%20Founding&units=p&size=l&year=1970_2000&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_33.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38.81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05_63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_56.56

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 6:39 am » wrote:Annualized GDP growth

Another moonbat with absolutely no idea how to understand statistics.

Let's try a little common sense.

What's the average altitude of plane that starts and 20,000 feet and begins to nosedive?

What's the average altitude of same plane after a competent pilot takes over at 5,000 feet and brings it back up to 15,000 feet?

And who's the better pilot, the one who almost crashed the plane or the one who saved it?

If you don't like the use of annualised GDP, feel free to use a different measure, explain why it's better and provide numbers that support your argument.

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 7:03 am » wrote:If you don't like the use of annualised GDP, feel free to use a different measure, explain why it's better and provide numbers that support your argument.

Why didn't you answer my question?

Answer: because doing so would prove you wrong.

Because it was a nonsensical hypothetical question - and a bad metaphor is no substitute for data.

I thought I'd stick to the topic and ask you to back up your assertions.

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 7:10 am » wrote: Because it was a nonsensical hypothetical question - and a bad metaphor is no substitute for data.

I thought I'd stick to the topic and ask you to back up your assertions.

It was common sense question that explains why you utterly bungled the issue.

And you know it.


You moonbats are all alike, you fear reality like vampires fear a cross.

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 7:03 am » wrote:If you don't like the use of annualised GDP, feel free to use a different measure, explain why it's better and provide numbers that support your argument.

I'll take that as a "No" then. You have nothing.

Why am I not surprised?

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 7:24 am » wrote: I'll take that as a "No" then. You have nothing.

Why am I not surprised?

I "have nothing," as the moonbat avoids a simple question with fear in his eyes.

You people are as dumb as freaking rocks.

Carter began with a moderately healthy, growing economy and drove it into the ground.

Reagan took an economy that was collapsing in chaos and brought about a huge economic boom.

The use of average GDP over four year periods hides that reality.

That's why you stonewalled my question.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

You fail to account for inflation.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

If there was ever a sign of mental illness, here it is.

Utterly bungling an issue, the ranting obscenely.

So, these are the numbers you want but couldn't be bothered to provide?

I don't think these quite show the pattern you claim.

Did you want to comment on the debt numbers? I think they show a pretty clear picture too.

Year
GDP Growth Rate
Nom GDP (Bn)
GDP per Capita
Events

1974
-0.5%
$1,548.8
$25,898
Wage-price controls had created stagflation. Ford became President. Fed raised rate to 13% to fight 12.3% inflation.

1975
-0.2%
$1,688.9
$25,590
GDP fell 4.8% in Q1, unemployment peaked at 9%. Fed lowered rate to 7.5% despite 6.9% inflation.

1976
5.4%
$1,877.6
$26,707
Fed lowered rate to 4.75%. Inflation at 4.9%.

1977
4.6%
$2,086.0
$27,656
Carter became President. Inflation at 6.7%.

1978
5.6%
$2,356.6
$28,891
Fed raised rate to 10% to fight 9% inflation.

1979
3.2%
$2,632.1
$29,467
Fed raised rate to 15.5% to fight 13.3% inflation, then lowered it to 12% confusing price-setters. Iran hostage crisis. Three Mile Island disaster ends further nuclear construction in U.S.

1980
-0.2%
$2,862.5
$29,041
Fed raised rate to 20%. GDP dropped 7.9% in Q2. Fed lowered rate to 10% by August to boost economy, then raised it to 20% to fight 12.5% inflation. Iran oil embargo.

1981
2.6%
$3,210.9
$29,488
Reagan became President. Fed lowered rate to 12%. Inflation at 8.9%.

1982
-1.9%
$3,345.0
$28,638
To combat 1982 recession, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, removing restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for Savings and Loan banks, while budget cuts reduced bank regulatory staff. Fed lowered rate to 8.5% since inflation was a moderate (in those days) 3.8%.

1983
4.6%
$3,638.1
$29,662
Unemployment was 10.8%. Reagan proposed Star Wars and increased military spending.

1984
7.3%
$4,040.7
$31,519

1985
4.2%
$4,346.7
$32,531

1986
3.5%
$4,590.1
$33,353
Reagan cut taxes. Chernobyl nuclear accident.

1987
3.5%
$4,870.2
$34,114
Black Monday stock market crash. Inflation at 4.4%.

1988
4.2%
$5,252.6
$35,196
Fed raised rate to 9.75% to combat 4.4% inflation.

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:06 am » wrote:So, these are the numbers you want but couldn't be bothered to provide?

I don't think these quite show the pattern you claim.

Why did you dodge my point? It's factually established beyond any doubt that what I claimed is true.

If you can't get the absolutely most basic reality correct, if you dodge key questions and points forever, why would I ever be so stupid as to debate stats?

Carter began with a moderately healthy, growing economy and drove it into the ground.

Reagan took an economy that was collapsing in chaos and brought about a huge economic boom.

The use of average GDP over four year periods hides that reality.

That's why you stonewalled my question.

Well, I guess when the current incompetent is in office it is only fitting that the left attempts to change 25 yr old history.


I am loving the coming November.