Liberal Forum

Spirit of Molly » 17 Feb 2014 12:33 am » wrote: Interesting graph. Kind of makes Reagan look like a bad choice for the economy. It shows GDP growth peaking around '82 – right about the time Reagan's first budget came into effect, then plunges steeply and stays pretty low for most of his time in office.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 10:53 pm » wrote:

I refuse to debate the numbers until you tell me what they are. In the SAME POST I have seen you end Carter's term in 1980, in order to show Reagan being handed a flat economy, and ending in 1981, in order to lower Carter's increase in the GDP. I have asked for clarification twice at least. This is the third time, at least.

Which numbers belong to Carter? 1976 - 1980, or 1977 - 1981?

PICK, then we can argue the numbers - not until

PICK WHAT NUMBERS ARE CARTER'S BEFORE YOU DEMAND I ARGUE THE NUMBERS WITH YOU. ONCE YOU HAVE PICKED, BE PREPARED TO STICK. THEN WE CAN ARGUE THE NUMBERS, SON.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:50 pm » wrote:
Not in the post that I responded to, you didn't. You used his third fiscal year to define what he "turned over" to Reagan. That was dishonest on two counts but, as I said, better then clem and crimson.
Here, since you're busy waiting until I get to your attempt at a rebuttal and shred it, refute these numbers (since they refute your thesis) - or mock them without providing alternative numbers - whatever it is you feel you need to do:
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

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 11:24 pm » wrote:
As I made clear in the OP, retard, I don't trust people JUST LIKE YOU to be honest about the numbers. People like you will bounce between sets, depending on which best serves their current argument. I mentioned both sets of numbers, and stated that I was willing to argue my thesis, to wit: THAT CARTER WAS BETTER ON THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN, with either set of numbers BUT NOT BOTH.

You have consistently tried to use both. You use 1980 to argue that Carter left with a stagnant (not growing or shrinking) economy. You used 1981 to deprive Carter of 1976 and drop his overall performance stats.

Once you have picked ONE SET (1976-1980, or 1977-1981), I will debate the numbers with you. Until then, we will all watch you screech ineffectually and dishonestly.

peepee » 17 Feb 2014 7:17 am » wrote:I'm not even sure you understand what the money system entails.



...i am convinced you are ignorant as to the origin and nature of 'dollars'...the basic who's and how's, etc...

peepee » 17 Feb 2014 10:23 am » wrote:....amazon tuna, until you learn what one 'dollar' is, your best bet would be to stop working your corksucker about the illion 'dollar' economy...and/or completely ignore me, like roach clip and your other fellow republicrat monetary ignoramusses, corksuckers, etc...

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 12:11 am » wrote: Your memory is sound. But your narrative can use some clarity.

Reagan robbed social security. Reagan MASSIVELY grew government. Reagan borrowed more radically, whether in real dollars adjusted for inflation, or in debt as a percentage of GDP, than any president sonce Roosevelt in WWII. The precious, precious unborn have to PAY THAT MONEY BACK.

Much of the "production" that Reaganites credit him with was PAYED FOR BY GOVERNMENT. Many of the JOBS they credit him with were either government jobs, or jobs with government as the only customer. Still many more were PART TIME jobs, as Reagan's IRS rewarded hiring lots of part timers instead of full time workers as a trick to play with the employment numbers.

Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillion dollars, and borrowed a couple of trillions - TRIPLING our national debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion. It's not hard to "look good" on borrowed money that is passed along to other presidents, who then get cussed for the debt.

That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.

If Carter had tripled the national debt, the triumphal screeching of contards would echo through the ages into infinity.

Let's look at the size of government:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... ince-1962/

Carter inherited a federal government with 5,005,000 total employees at all levels, including military. In 1981, it had been reduced to 4,982,000. The reductions came from the civilian side. Contrary to popular belief, there were MORE people serving in the military, not less.

Reagan inherited a government with a total of 4,982,000 employees, and left it in 1989 with 5, 292,000. MIND YOU, that does not reflect the massive build up in jobs whose only customer was government.

AGAIN: That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an attempt at HONEST comparison of the two, instead of the conservative mainstream media spin-narrative that folks seem to take for granted.

Please seat yourself.



I like the very things you hate.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

deezer shoove » 17 Feb 2014 11:53 am » wrote:Speaking of memory, the massive build up that scared the **** out of the Soviets was mostly real. That's part of the increase you cite. The impression was very strong that they might return the favor and build up as well (ala Cold War style). Here was the kicker: America's economic strength could draw on it's credibility, reserve currency status, basic intrinsic wealth, etc. to pull off the threat of ever-increasing military. THAT was the ploy the Soviets could not pull off. The "We'll match every ammo pile bullet for bullet" plan was not credible for them. I mean, not even close. It took lots of overt spending to show the seriousness and commitment the US was willing to put forth at the time. Very expensive proposition.

That scenario was a very unique collision of events. To compare times even relatively soon before and after is missing some very real circumstances.

That's what I remember...

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:31 pm » wrote:
From what I saw in this thread, the psychotic hasn't offered one single mainstream source that supports his claim.

So all he is offering is his ignorant, moonbat opinion based on a cherry picked selection of statistics.

You people are demented.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:35 pm » wrote: The adults saw the sources, clemtard. Not one has been partisan. I believe that's what your code words mean - he's not using partisan sources, so he's cheating.

Go harrumph elsewhere, you fool. It's all you have left, you redundant hack.

No one respects you on this board - just as they did not on the other.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:38 pm » wrote:
What, are you brain dead? The only sources you cited were for raw statistics, and the only thing supporting your wacky claim about Reagan and Carter is your ignorant, psychotic analysis.

Cite a mainstream source, i.e. opinion based on analysis, that backs up your claim that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:46 pm » wrote: There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

I am going to start a thread with this, and expound further.

Glory Hole, you are about to receive the honor of having a thread title with your name in it.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 11:44 pm » wrote: Whatever helps ya sleep, kid.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:46 pm » wrote: There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

I am going to start a thread with this, and expound further.

Glory Hole, you are about to receive the honor of having a thread title with your name in it.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:46 pm » wrote: There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

I am going to start a thread with this, and expound further.

Glory Hole, you are about to receive the honor of having a thread title with your name in it.

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.