Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:01 pm » wrote: That depends on whether you're going to understand that you have yourself backed into a Keynesian corner, contard (needed the alliteration - sorry).

If you factor in that Reagan almost doubled the economy using 2 TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT, then "you" and "we" are better off for it, so long as "you" and "we" does not include the precious, precious unborn.

You guys want to have it both ways and then the third way. WHEN YOU PULL REAGAN'S TWO TRILLION BORROWED DOLLARS OUT OF THE ECONOMY, he added less than 400 billion in 8 years - LESS THAN INFLATION.

What does this psychotic moonbat fail to take into account?

1) That Reagan began with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. Those stats must be taken into account.

2) That liberal Dems and a few "moderate" Repubs were the driving force behind domestic spending, not Reagan. It's just plain dishonest to pin that on him.

3) That a one-time military buildup to defeat the Soviet Union was absolutely worth the debt incurred and in fact led to larger permanent cuts in military spending just a few years later.

And 3) that although there was debt accumulation, the GDP remained forever, meaning the prosperity remained.

Making his policies and success absolutely different than liberal-left Keynesians, who are left with massive debt and a horrific economy once the spending stops.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:05 pm » wrote: WHAT SOURCES, moonbat? You have not brought ONE SOURCE to this thread. Nor have you made even a feeble attempt to refute mine. You've groused. That's it. You've just mumbled and groused.

I was referring to the sources I've cited on many topics including this and FDR.

Every one of which you rejected.

How typically dishonest that you avoid admitting that.

Okay, okay, this again. I USED to bring it, and it's your fault you were not there in my glory days, back when I did more than spew rhetoric.

Gotcha, Glory Hole.

"Glory days" like a few days ago, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:49 pm » wrote: Another desperate restatement of the conservative media's meme. Crimson is really "bringing it" today.

If only Carter had thought to rob SS.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 1:42 pm » wrote:
And no source to back that up. Typical.

Looks to me as if Carter inherited a decent economy.

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

Here are the growth numbers for 73-76 - what Carter inherited:

73: +5.6
74: -0.5
75: -0.2
76: +5.4

Here's 77 - 80 - What Reagan inherited:

77: +4.6
78: +5.6
79: +3.2
80: -.02

Now, then.

What were you saying?

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 1:42 pm » wrote:Any other bulls*** you'd like to pass off?

Meaning you have no idea about the idea of the momentum and timing of an economy.

You're in so far over your head, you can't even see daylight.

Here are the growth numbers for 73-76 - what Carter inherited:

73: +5.6
74: -0.5
75: -0.2
76: +5.4

Here's 77 - 80 - what Reagan inherited:

77: +4.6
78: +5.6
79: +3.2
80: -.02

Now, then.

What were you saying? Carter inherited an economy that had 50% down years in the previous 4. Reagan inherited an economy with one flat year (two tenths of one percent down) in the previous 4.

greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2014 2:13 pm » wrote:If only Carter had thought to rob SS.

Ignoring the reality that liberal Dems were the driving force behind domestic spending, not Reagan.

Any other falsehoods you'd like to spread?

greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2014 2:13 pm » wrote:
If only Carter had thought to rob SS.

His big mistake was not adding 2 trillion to the national debt, and claiming that "money" as GDP.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:05 pm » wrote:WHAT SOURCES, moonbat? You have not brought ONE SOURCE to this thread. Nor have you made even a feeble attempt to refute mine. You've groused. That's it. You've just mumbled and groused.

We've already used your sources to debunk your own claims.
Your chart showed Carter's average GDP to be 3.4%
That means that Carter came to office with a first year GDP of 4.6%, and left with a -0.2%

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:16 pm » wrote:
Ignoring the reality that liberal Dems were the driving force behind domestic spending, not Reagan.

Any other falsehoods you'd like to spread?

So Reagan was ineffectual? That's your argument - Reagan was a hapless victim?

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:15 pm » wrote: http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

Here are the growth numbers for 73-76:

73: +5.6
74: -0.5
75: -0.2
76: +5.4

5.4% is pretty strong growth, psycho. That's the economy Carter inherited.

Here's 77 - 80:

77: +4.6
78: +5.6
79: +3.2
80: -.02

Failing to take into account the powerful downward spiral the economy was in; the chaos, the confusion, the utter lack of solution by most policy makers.

Except Reagan.

What were you saying?

That you're psychotic and deeply dishonest.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 2:19 pm » wrote: We've already used your sources to debunk your own claims.
Your chart showed Carter's average GDP to be 3.4%
That means that Carter came to office with a first year GDP of 4.6%, and left with a -0.2%

SO YOU ACCEPT THAT CHART - YOU'RE WILLING TO OWN THAT NUMBER?

You have already been all over the board with the math, son. Pick 4 years to attribute to Carter and stick. Only then will I debate you on the numbers.

Carter owns 1980 (-0,2%) and Reagan owns '81. Is that it?

YES/NO

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:19 pm » wrote: So Reagan was ineffectual? That's your argument - Reagan was a hapless victim?

That it takes time to achieve a goal when the opposition party is strong and entrenched.

But Reagan's side won in the end, and spending shrank by 2% of GDP over his eight years. (Or 3, I forget.)

Go ahead, bleat your stupidity.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:21 pm » wrote:
SO YOU ACCEPT THAT CHART - YOU'RE WILLING TO OWN THAT NUMBER?

You have already been all over the board with the math, son. Pick 4 years to attribute to Carter and stick. Only then will I debate you on the numbers.

Carter owns 1980 (-0,2%) and Reagan owns '81. Is that it?

YES/NO

The chart was proof of YOUR claim, not mine.
The problem for you is that YOUR chart, confirmed MY numbers, not yours.

Either YOUR chart is wrong, or YOUR numbers are wrong. They cannot BOTH be correct.
Get it yet?

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:21 pm » wrote: Pick 4 years to attribute to Carter and stick. Only then will I debate you on the numbers.

Carter owns 1980 (-0,2%) and Reagan owns '81. Is that it?

YES/NO

Don't be freaking stupid. A president doesn't "own" an economy just because he took office.

Did Dubya "own" the 2001 recession that began in March?

Did Clinton "own" the strongly recovering economy as he took office?

Is there any issue you won't utterly bungle?

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:20 pm » wrote:
5.4% is pretty strong growth, psycho. That's the economy Carter inherited.

Not much on math, are ya? That kind of growth is pretty easy to achieve after two down years. You would have to add the negatives and divide by three to get an honest picture of what Carter inherited.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:20 pm » wrote:Failing to take into account the powerful downward spiral the economy was in; the chaos, the confusion, the utter lack of solution by most policy makers.

[/quote]

That's funny. A flat year is a "powerful downward spiral?" It was followed by a 2.6% growth year: a year that CARTER - not REAGAN - made the budget.

Rhetoric and memes will only get you so far, bathroomer.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:24 pm » wrote:
Don't be freaking stupid. A president doesn't "own" an economy just because he took office.

Did Dubya "own" the 2001 recession that began in March?

Did Clinton "own" the strongly recovering economy as he took office?

Is there any issue you won't utterly bungle?

You JUST GOT THROUGH attributing 1981 to Reagan. IN YOUR LAST POST.

You truly are a hypocrite, son.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:51 pm » wrote:
You poor little thing. GDP stats ARE results!

Tell us, what "results" are YOU talking about?

Son, I play the game as well or better than you.

snicker

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:24 pm » wrote: Not much on math, are ya? That kind of growth is pretty easy to achieve after two down years. You would have to add the negatives and divide by three to get an honest picture of what Carter inherited.

Hogwash, but even accepting your idiocy, Carter inherited an economy that was moderately healthy, as I claimed and you stupidly denied.

That's funny. A flat year is a "powerful downward spiral?" It was followed by a 2.6% growth year: a year that CARTER - not REAGAN - made the budget.

Rhetoric and memes will only get you so far, bathroomer.

There was a serious recession in 1981 and in 1983 the worst recession since the Great Depression.

So I can only assume that you intentionally ignored those to deceive everyone.

Lying troll.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:25 pm » wrote: You JUST GOT THROUGH attributing 1981 to Reagan. IN YOUR LAST POST.

You truly are a hypocrite, son.

I never, EVER "attributed" the 1981 economic conditions or recession to Reagan.

And as usual, you didn't quote my actual words.

Lying freaking troll.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:25 pm » wrote: You JUST GOT THROUGH attributing 1981 to Reagan. IN YOUR LAST POST.
You truly are a hypocrite, son.

Still waiting for you to explain why my numbers (from your link the OP), supported by YOUR graph is wrong, and why YOUR numbers contradict YOUR graph.

tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 8:49 am » wrote:154% implies the economy would more than double in size. Since that didn't happen I'll let you feel silly about your inability to do third grade arithmetic before dealing with the rest of your post.

Conservative math