Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
By Cannonpointer
16 Feb 2014 2:56 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
16 Feb 2014 8:16 am
No, those stats go in so many different directions, only someone with zero understanding of Economics would cite them en masse.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:06 am » wrote:So, these are the numbers you want but couldn't be bothered to provide?
Only the hopelessly clueless would put Carter anywhere near Reagan, let alone above him on the economy.
16 Feb 2014 8:21 am
They show GDP for the years prior to Carter (so that you can show how wonderful everything was then) through the Carter years (to show how he drove the economy into the ground) through to the end of Reagan (to show how he heroically saved the world).RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:16 am » wrote:
No, those stats go in so many different directions, only someone with zero understanding of Economics would cite them en masse.
Only the hopelessly clueless would put Carter anywhere near Reagan, let alone above him on the economy.
It give GPD by year as well as showing GDP growth by year (as you wanted) and average GDP per capita, by year.
Surely you could cobble together some support for your argument from that?
If not, maybe you could provide something to support your claims?
16 Feb 2014 8:40 am
16 Feb 2014 8:43 am
No, I don't waste my time for moonbats who stonewall my questions and my points, as you have every time.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:21 am » wrote: They show GDP for the years prior to Carter (so that you can show how wonderful everything was then) through the Carter years (to show how he drove the economy into the ground) through to the end of Reagan (to show how he heroically saved the world).
It give GPD by year as well as showing GDP growth by year (as you wanted) and average GDP per capita, by year.
Surely you could cobble together some support for your argument from that?
If not, maybe you could provide something to support your claims?
It would be a complete and utter waste of time.
This is not a matter of debate or dispute. No one with the slightest knowledge or common sense would claim that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan.
No one.
16 Feb 2014 8:49 am
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.
16 Feb 2014 8:52 am
OK. Here are your questions:
Q: What's the average altitude of plane that starts and 20,000 feet and begins to nosedive?
A: There is insufficient data to calculate an average. Nonsense question.
Q: 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?
A: How long does each part take, what is the rate of descent and what is the rate of ascent? Given that, we can arrive at an average. Insufficient data.
Q: And who's the better pilot, the one who almost crashed the plane or the one who saved it?
A: Insufficient data. Depends on the reason for the nosedive and what happened to the original pilot. In your scenario it could even be the same pilot who had just been to take a leak.
There you go.
Your turn.
Q: What's the average altitude of plane that starts and 20,000 feet and begins to nosedive?
A: There is insufficient data to calculate an average. Nonsense question.
Q: 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?
A: How long does each part take, what is the rate of descent and what is the rate of ascent? Given that, we can arrive at an average. Insufficient data.
Q: And who's the better pilot, the one who almost crashed the plane or the one who saved it?
A: Insufficient data. Depends on the reason for the nosedive and what happened to the original pilot. In your scenario it could even be the same pilot who had just been to take a leak.
There you go.
Your turn.
16 Feb 2014 8:55 am
Ummm. No. It would mean it had grown to 1.54 times the size it was before.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.
Ironic post?
16 Feb 2014 8:57 am
Silverfox » wrote: Ummm. No. It would mean it had grown to 1.54 times the size it was before. Ironic post?
lolwut.....did you drop out of school in third grade like Cannon??? If what you're saying is true then 100% growth would imply zero growth son. I'll let you find out you're wrong rather than prove it to you though.
16 Feb 2014 9:02 am
If you "grow" to 100% of your height last year, you had zero growth.
Cannon said, "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".
Back to you.
Cannon said, "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".
Back to you.
16 Feb 2014 9:07 am
huh?Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:55 am » wrote:
Ummm. No. It would mean it had grown to 1.54 times the size it was before.
Ironic post?
16 Feb 2014 9:10 am
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.Cedarswamp » 16 Feb 2014 9:07 am » wrote:
huh?
16 Feb 2014 9:21 am
I suspect tharock has taken a sabbatical to go off and learn 3rd grade mathematics.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 9:02 am » wrote:If you "grow" to 100% of your height last year, you had zero growth.
Cannon said, "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".
Back to you.
16 Feb 2014 9:36 am
My bad, I wasn't applying it in the context of the OP, but to ROI.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 9:10 am » wrote:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
Cannons point is deceptive though using the nominal GDP instead of the real GDP.
16 Feb 2014 9:43 am
Carter decimated the military, gutted the economy and turned over a country in recession.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.
Two words for idiots that want to crow about Carter: Misery Index.
16 Feb 2014 11:50 am
Sigh....lolberals and their math. 100% growth means doubled son.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 9:02 am » wrote:If you "grow" to 100% of your height last year, you had zero growth.
Cannon said, "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".
Back to you.
16 Feb 2014 12:00 pm
Only under Carter did mortgage rates equal credit card rates.golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 9:43 am » wrote: Carter decimated the military, gutted the economy and turned over a country in recession.
Two words for idiots that want to crow about Carter: Misery Index.
16 Feb 2014 12:02 pm
A lump of distorted history in a kindergarten soundbite. You people suck at maturity.golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 9:43 am » wrote: Carter decimated the military, gutted the economy and turned over a country in recession.
Two words for idiots that want to crow about Carter: Misery Index.
16 Feb 2014 12:04 pm
I was in the adult world under both of them, I will stick with Reagan for results. Carter was stuck with the title of most incompetent POTUS ever, till now.greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2014 12:02 pm » wrote:
A lump of distorted history in a kindergarten soundbite. You people suck at maturity.
16 Feb 2014 12:06 pm
seems to me that I recently crushed your supposed math genius with a few flicking fingers… what was it now? I am sure that YOU don't remember.tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 11:50 am » wrote:
Sigh....lolberals and their math. 100% growth means doubled son.
deliberately deceptive or just thick.
this is the statement in the OP you are pretending to contend: 154% of where he took over
and you thought no one would notice the difference you are trying to play between that and
100% growth
16 Feb 2014 12:08 pm
Which is not the way cannonpointer presented it. Had you read it and comprehended what he was saying, you would realize that he never said that Carter increased the economy BY 154%. You would have seen that he said Carter increased the economy TO 154%.tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 11:50 am » wrote: Sigh....lolberals and their math. 100% growth means doubled son.
If you're still confused about the difference between the two, you might need to give your 3rd grade math teacher a ring.
Who is online
In total there are 3952 users online :: 9 registered, 16 bots, and 3927 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, Squatchman, ROG62, LowIQTrash, Cannonpointer, nefarious101
Bots: DuckDuckBot, MQQBrowser, Firefox/7.0, CriteoBot, Kinza, ADmantX, facebookexternalhit, aiohttp, proximic, Mediapartners-Google, YandexBot, Googlebot, bingbot, curl/7, Applebot, Baiduspider